A quick look at California’s recent Right of Publicity amendment, AI, and likeness

California has joined other states like Tennessee in amending its statutory Right of Publicity in response to AI and digital replicas. Senate Bill 683 was signed into law by Governor Newsom on October 10, 2025.

Statutory clarity is a good thing, and concerns over AI and digital replicas are valid. That said, a Right of Publicity infringement involving AI or digital replicas already should fit squarely into a reasonable interpretation of Right of Publicity. I submit that likeness was always intended to be a catch-all provision. Many statutes articulate image and photograph alongside likeness. If likeness is merely identical to image or photograph, it would be pointless to include and serve no purpose. The intent behind Right of Publicity recognition as I have always understood it is not to use a crabbed, restrictive interpretation in the face of infringement. Further, interpreting likeness as inclusive of digital replicas does not require expansive interpretation; it merely requires application of its plain meaning.

As such, I would not hesitate to support an otherwise enforceable, legitimate Right of Publicity claim in a jurisdiction that does not have an AI or digital replica amendment to its Right of Publicity provisions. There should be no need for a Tik Tok statute or an Instagram amendment, and the same holds true with regard to AI and digital replicas. Bette Midler and Tom Waits both prevailed in soundalike cases decades ago, though they did so under California’s common law following an interpretation that because their actual voice was not included in the offending jingles, the statute did not apply. The court likely missed the opportunity to interpret likeness in its most direct manner, consistent with the purpose for likeness being articulated in the statute. Look up likeness in the American Heritage Dictionary and there is no question that likeness is not a mere synonym for image or photograph. It is a broad, inclusive term.

The most notable amendments to California’s Civil Code Section 3344 include:

1. Expanding the interpretation and definition of photograph as well as voice and likeness as inclusive of digital replicas.
2. Including injunctive relief and TROs as a remedy, and specifically, upon a court order to cease an infringement of 3344, the infringer must comply within days of the order being served.

Citing the statute directly in relation to the added forms of relief, section 3344 (a)(2) states:

(2) In addition to the remedies available in paragraph (1), a party may seek an injunction or temporary restraining order pursuant to Section 527 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the court grants the applicant an order under subdivision (c) of Section 527 of the Code of Civil Procedure that requires the respondent to remove, recall, or otherwise cease the publication or distribution of the petitioner’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, the respondent shall complete the removal or recall, or cease the publication or distribution, within two business days from the day the order is served, unless otherwise required by the order.

Citing the statute directly in relation to the expanded definition of photograph, 3344 (b) and (b)(1) state:
(b) As used in this section, “photograph” means any photograph or photographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live television transmission, of any person, such that the person is readily identifiable.
(1) A person shall be deemed to be readily identifiable from a photograph when one who views the photograph with the naked eye can reasonably determine that the person depicted in the photograph is the same person who is complaining of its unauthorized use.

And last, citing the statute directly in relation to its inclusion of digital replicas, 3344 (f) states:
(f) For the purposes of this section, a voice or likeness includes a digital replica, as defined in Section 3344.1.

Here is a link to the full amendment: Text of California’s amended 3344

Jason Mraz lawsuit illustrates important takeaways

The lawsuit filed by Jason Mraz against MillerCoors, filed December 4, 2019 illustrates various important points and takeaways.  View the complaint here:  Jason Mraz v. MillerCoors complaint

Reportedly, MillerCoors was a sponsor of the 2019 BeachLife Festival in California where Jason Mraz performed.  His performance of course included one of his hit songs, I’m Yours.  The complaint alleges that MillerCoors posted an advertisement on Instagram for Coors.  The advertisement includes a clip of Mraz performing the song, the Coors logo, display of a can of Coors Light, the phrase “presented by Coors Light,” and in the comments, the added statement “Kicking off summer with the World’s Most Refreshing Beer at the BeachLife Festival.”

While a complaint is not the same as a ruling, at least two of the important takeaways from this case are:

1. Social media is advertising.
2. Sponsors do not acquire broad rights to third-party intellectual property simply by serving as a sponsor.

Both of these issues come up with some regularity in the business of representing a rights owner and the right of publicity.  Claiming that a social media post is somehow different from advertising on the basis that it is a fluid, user-controlled environment, or that serving as a sponsor entitles the sponsor to utilize the rights of anyone other than the party they are in contract with as a sponsor, both can lead to serious problems.