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

Will a valuation of the Jimmy Buffet estate’s diverse intellectual property be required?

Jimmy Buffett, upon his passing in 2023, left behind a business empire worth an estimated $275M. Despite apparent efforts to ensure a clean transition after his death, two lawsuits have been filed by Buffett’s widow of almost fifty years on one side, and his financial advisor of almost thirty years on the other, in California and Florida. Jimmy Buffett is one of the rare personalities who left behind a diverse portfolio of intellectual property assets including copyrights (in his music catalog, books, artwork), trademarks (business pursuits, brands, and his name itself), and the often-unnamed Right of Publicity (or Name Image Likeness / NIL for Right of Publicity newcomers) which underlies everything.

Buffett reportedly created a marital trust and appointed a co-trustee to administer his businesses and assets along with (and for the benefit of) Buffett’s widow. By all appearances, Buffet took responsible steps in planning and organizing his affairs after his passing. One allegation in the lawsuits is that the co-trustee estimates annual earnings of around $2M, which would appear to be only a modest annual percentage return, against a reported trustee fee of $1.7M.

Even for notable celebrities, the amount subject to estate tax may not always be as significant as one might expect or assume. For Jimmy Buffett, his various intellectual property interests and diverse assets certainly are significant. It is possible Buffett’s estate or trust at some point could require a mindful valuation by a qualified expert to perform an evidence-based valuation of Jimmy Buffett’s Right of Publicity, NIL, and other intellectual property assets. The situation is reminiscent of the Prince estate, and the Michael Jackson estate before that, both of which involved a combination of valuable intellectual property comprising the estate.

Some may say it’s a nice problem to have, but that does not make the responsibility any easier. One of the near-term issues to be decided is which state will take priority in the recently-filed lawsuits. While coverage of the situation likely will not mention Jimmy Buffett’s Right of Publicity, it most certainly is present. Here’s a link to coverage of the lawsuits: Two separate lawsuits filed involving Jimmy Buffet marital trust