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

A few notes on “Copyright Restoration Act” bill and Disney

At the bottom of this entry is a link to more detailed analysis of the Copyright Restoration Act bill introduced by Senator Hawley in mid-May 2022, but for this entry, I will offer just a few observations. The bill seeks to curtail copyright duration and recast it in the former model of life of the author plus 28 years with an optional 28-year renewal. An explanation accompanying the bill uses the word “woke” twice in one sentence, and seems premised on the idea that the current copyright duration model was simply a Republican handout to Disney.

It could be interesting if someone were to research whether the prior legislative activity leading to the current copyright duration model can rightly be characterized as purely a Republican effort, or merely a handout, but the legislation was processed and deliberated over. The quotations accompanying the introduction of the bill seem to make clear that the bill is not about good, needed legislation, but rather some form of political posturing, which may not be the best foundation for legislative activity or intellectual property recognition. While the former model of 28 years with a potential renewal window has generated a lot of legal work for some due to its complexity and susceptibility to being manipulated, it could also be a good point to research whether the 28 plus 28 renewal is an efficient, clear and fair model to utilize. There are good reasons the copyright model moved on from the former structure.

What happens in the copyright realm often makes it way to the Right of Publicity realm. It seems the bill is not likely to pass, but it could be an entry worth marking for posterity.

For more information on the bill, see:
Don’t Say Copyright: lexology link to Frankfurt Kurnit Klien & Selz analysis article

Public Service Announcement: NIL = RoP

Thought everyone should know.

New York State Assembly Bill A560C

New York’s legislature may be closing in on passing a Right of Publicity statute with New York State Assembly Bill A5605C.  If so, it would be a significant development in the Right of Publicity realm as New York has been conspicuously behind other states for a very long time.  As of July 20, 2020, the bill was “amended on third reading” (here’s a link to the timeline and status of the bill which also has link to the PDF of the bill itself):  https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/A5605

Overall, my take is that this bill would be a step in the right direction, even as it would still amount to New York having one of more narrow or limited Right of Publicity statutes in the United States.  For example, a forty year post-mortem provision is quite anemic, and creating a registry system sounds good on paper but in my experience is not particularly helpful yet introduces various problems.  Video games are not on the list of exempted works, as they should not be, and also to its credit, the bill has meaningful provisions in relation to Deepfakes and the problems such technology present in the modern world.

The progress of this bill seems already to have traveled further than past efforts.  Hopefully, tired refrains like “this bill exists only to enrich a few wealthy estates” are worn-out by now and find no traction.  Does copyright and trademark exist only to enrich a few wealthy creators or companies?  Observations of past legislative efforts in New York are addressed in the following link I made on the topic:  https://rightofpublicity.com/observations-about-new-yorks-assembly-bill-a-8155b