Image, Likeness & Digital Replicas

Written By Mitchell Estrada

IMAGE, LIKENESS & DIGITAL REPLICAS

Right to Image, Likeness and Commercial Use

Core Principle

A person's face, voice, image, and recognizable identity belong fundamentally to that person.

Being visible in public should not automatically grant another person or company an unlimited commercial right to exploit someone's identity.

The law should distinguish:

recording an event

from

commercially exploiting an identifiable individual.

Commercial Use of a Person's Image

A business should generally require consent before using an identifiable person's:

  • photograph;

  • video;

  • voice;

  • likeness;

  • biometric identity

to advertise, endorse, promote, or sell a product or service.

A company should not be permitted to place an ordinary person's recognizable image in:

  • advertisements;

  • promotional campaigns;

  • product packaging;

  • sponsored social-media posts;

  • corporate marketing;

  • commercial endorsements

without permission.

Where the person's identity materially contributes to the commercial value of the use, compensation may be required according to agreement.

No False Endorsement

A person's image may not be used in a way that reasonably implies that the individual:

  • endorses a product;

  • supports a company;

  • supports a political cause;

  • recommends a service;

  • participated voluntarily in an advertisement

when that is not true.

Unauthorized false endorsement should create a right to:

  • removal;

  • damages;

  • recovery of profits where appropriate.

Incidental Appearance

Merely appearing incidentally in the background of an otherwise lawful photograph or recording should not automatically create a compensation claim.

Examples include:

  • walking through a public street;

  • appearing in the background of a sporting event;

  • being part of a large crowd;

  • passing behind a television reporter.

However, where an identifiable individual becomes the primary subject of a commercial use, stronger consent requirements should apply.

News and Public-Affairs Reporting

Legitimate reporting on matters of public concern should generally remain protected.

News organizations should not have to obtain permission from every person who appears incidentally in footage of:

  • public events;

  • disasters;

  • protests;

  • crimes;

  • government activity;

  • public meetings;

  • matters of legitimate public concern.

Current U.S. law generally treats newsworthy use differently from advertising or other commercial appropriation.

Ordinary People Who Become the Focus of a Story

Where a private individual is not accused of wrongdoing and is not voluntarily acting as a public spokesperson, news organizations should take reasonable steps to avoid unnecessary identification when the person's identity is not materially relevant to the public-interest story.

Possible protections may include:

  • blurring faces;

  • withholding names;

  • obscuring license plates;

  • modifying identifying details.

This protection should be particularly strong for:

  • minors;

  • crime victims;

  • medical patients;

  • witnesses;

  • bystanders;

  • people experiencing private tragedy.

Commercial Reuse of News Footage

A distinction should exist between:

using someone's image to report the news

and

later using that same footage to advertise or commercially promote the news company itself.

For example:

A news organization may lawfully show footage of a person because that person is relevant to a legitimate news event.

That should not automatically give the organization unlimited authority to place that person's face in an unrelated commercial advertisement years later.

Commercial promotional reuse may require consent where the individual is a substantial identifiable subject.

Monetized Social Media

Simply earning advertising revenue from journalism, commentary, documentary work, or lawful creative expression should not automatically transform every identifiable appearance into an endorsement requiring payment.

However, creators should not be permitted to use an identifiable stranger primarily as the commercial subject of content intended to exploit, humiliate, harass, or falsely portray that person merely for profit.

Courts should consider:

  • newsworthiness;

  • public interest;

  • whether the person is incidental or central;

  • whether the use implies endorsement;

  • whether the person's identity itself creates the commercial value;

  • whether the content is deceptive or exploitative.

Children

Commercial use of a minor's identifiable likeness should generally require permission from a parent or lawful guardian, subject to legitimate journalism and public-interest exceptions.

Special protections should apply against monetizing children through:

  • humiliating content;

  • sexualized material;

  • deceptive advertising;

  • AI replicas;

  • exploitative influencer content.

Crime Victims

Victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, trafficking, stalking, and comparable crimes should receive heightened protections against unnecessary commercial exploitation of their identity.

The public's legitimate interest in reporting the event should be balanced against the victim's safety and privacy.

AI and Digital Replicas

The same rules apply when technology creates the image rather than a camera.

No person or company should create a materially realistic digital replica of another person's:

  • face;

  • voice;

  • body;

  • likeness

and commercially present that replica as the real individual without permission.

Fraudulent or exploitative AI replicas should receive stronger remedies.

Right to Request Removal

Where a person's likeness has been unlawfully commercially exploited, the person should have access to a rapid procedure to request:

  • removal;

  • cessation of commercial use;

  • correction of false endorsement;

  • damages where harm occurred.

Journalism Safeguard

The right to one's likeness should not become a mechanism for:

  • politicians to suppress embarrassing photographs;

  • corporations to suppress reporting of misconduct;

  • police officers to prevent recording of official conduct;

  • criminals to prevent reporting of crimes;

  • public officials to charge journalists for reporting government activity.

People performing public duties or participating materially in newsworthy public events should not have a general veto over truthful reporting.

Recording Police and Government Officials

Members of the public and press should retain the right to record government officials performing public duties where otherwise lawful.

Government officials should not acquire a private commercial likeness right that prevents documentation of their official conduct.

Private Harassment and Exploitation

Repeatedly photographing or recording a private person for the purpose of:

  • stalking;

  • harassment;

  • intimidation;

  • sexual exploitation;

  • extortion;

  • commercial humiliation

may constitute unlawful conduct even where an individual photograph was taken from a public location.

This should be evaluated together with MPA's broader right against persistent surveillance.

Core Standard

A person does not become public property merely because they enter public space.

People may be incidentally photographed and legitimately reported on.

But businesses should not acquire an unlimited commercial ownership interest in another person's face, voice, image, or identity merely because a camera captured them.

Newsworthiness protects reporting. Commercial exploitation requires stronger consent.

Related policies: Personal Rights & Freedoms; Artificial Intelligence, Synthetic Media & Automated Accounts; Cyberbullying, Defamation & Digital Reputation; Privacy Rights.

Status: Proposed / Draft — not yet formally adopted.

Originally published: August 15, 2026.

Last updated: September 25, 2026.

Version: Draft 0.1.

Mitchell Estrada
Previous

Veterans, Servicemembers & Military Families
Next

Parental Rights & Child-Removal Due Process