Protect yourself at all times: the UK’s legal gap on AI digital twins

No two people are alike, or so we thought. Recent advances in AI have made it possible to produce near-identical replicas of real people and insert them seamlessly into generated content.

The UK has no specific legal protection for digital replicas or, more broadly, for an individual’s likeness, and the position is little clearer internationally. Brands, advertisers, public figures, and deal parties interested in capitalising on and/or commercialising an individual’s unique personality and likeness will benefit from understanding both the protections that exist and the gaps.

AI marketing: opportunity and risk

Brands have long invested in celebrity endorsements, which often require lengthy negotiations, significant fees, coordination around availability and other physical limitations.

Generative AI has upended this model, allowing businesses to deploy a recognisable personality at scale across jurisdictions and platforms. But the same technology makes it relatively straightforward to create illegitimate endorsements featuring cloned individuals without their consent. Oprah Winfrey is one example of a high-profile figure who has fallen victim to deepfake advertising, depicting her promoting fraudulent wellness products. Without a dedicated UK and/or international regime to protect likeness, the question for public figures and their deal parties is how far can existing legal protections go?

The limits of IP and privacy protection

English law does not recognise standalone personality rights. No single regime allows an individual to control their image, likeness, voice, or identity. And the existing regimes, principally those of intellectual property and data protection, each have significant shortfalls.

These shortfalls are illustrated by recent celebrity trade mark filings. In light of the uncertainty around digital replication, public figures have turned to trade mark registrations in an attempt to control their image; but the nature of trade mark law limits what these filings can achieve.

Darts star Luke Littler has registered a photograph of his face as a trade mark at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), covering 11 classes spanning darts equipment, clothing, digital content, entertainment, and advertising services. While comprehensive, the issue remains that trade mark infringement requires the claimant to show that a third party has used an identical or similar sign. This is critical, as a different image of the same person will not necessarily be a similar sign as compared to the specific registered photograph; and so, infringement may be difficult to establish. 

At a more basic level, a key obstacle may actually be the requirement that a trade mark must function as a source identifier, and it is not immediately obvious that consumers would perceive a photograph of someone’s face as a badge of trade origin. A deepfake of Luke Littler in a fraudulent advertisement is deceptive, but the deception concerns identity, not necessarily trade origin. The law of passing off offers an alternative route for claimants, but requires proof of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage which requirements may prove difficult to satisfy in novel AI-generated contexts.

In the US, Taylor Swift has filed a figurative service mark depicting a specific performance look: a photograph of the singer in a pose, holding a pink guitar and wearing an iridescent bodysuit. The US Patent Trademark Office (USPTO) has yet to decide on registration but if registered, the mark will only be able to protect that particular visual arrangement, not her face, voice, or appearance more broadly. Again, it is not obvious that an AI-generated replica appearing in a different pose, performing in different clothing would reproduce the registered mark or something visually similar to it. However, both filings are interesting examples of creative attempts to repurpose trade mark law in the absence of an internationally recognised right that directly protects personal identity.

Data protection law has different but equally significant limitations. While the UK and EU GDPR regulate the processing of biometric data and grant individuals rights (including erasure and objection), these provisions do not provide a clear-cut basis for preventing the creation or commercial deployment of a digital replica. The UK Government’s own analysis confirms these gaps.

In its report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence (published 18 March 2026), the UK Government acknowledged that existing legal tools may not adequately address the risks posed by digital replicas of individuals’ voices and likenesses, and has committed to exploring further protections, potentially including a new personality right or digital replica right comparable to the US right of publicity. 

The right of publicity is a US state-level right that directly protects the commercial value of a person’s identity (including their name, likeness, and voice) without requiring proof of confusion as to trade origin or registration in specific goods and services classes. It provides a cause of action that English law currently lacks.

Commercialisation of personality rights

Despite these gaps, the commercial market for personality assets is moving ahead. However, the “person-as-asset” concept is not new and previous deals illustrate how difficult it is to separate a person from their brand or a wider commercial brand in a first or secondary transaction. 

Jo Malone and Bobbi Brown both sold their beauty businesses, including the brand names built around their personal identities, to Estée Lauder. As part of those deals, each founder became subject to non-competes and other contractual restrictions preventing them from using their own names commercially in the beauty industry. Disputes arose when each later sought to re-enter the market under a variation of their own name. Bobbi Brown launched “Jones Road Beauty” after being restricted from trading under “Bobbi Brown”, while Jo Malone launched “Jo Loves” following a dispute over continued use of the “Jo Malone” name. The disputes between Jo Malone and Estée Lauder have recently resumed, following the cosmetics giant taking issue with a collaboration between "Jo Loves" and Zara. The collaboration featured packaging bearing Jo Malone's name, with the text "A creation by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves". This is interesting because it appears Zara intentionally used the CBE designation to distinguish the person from the former brand.

A more recent example shows how these existing issues become more complicated when the “personality” assigned involves a digital replica. Khaby Lame, currently the most-followed creator on TikTok with over 160m followers, in a deal reportedly valued at US$975m, announced the sale of his company, Step Distinctive Limited, to Hong Kong-based Rich Sparkle Holdings. The proposed arrangement would apparently grant Rich Sparkle exclusive global rights to commercialise an AI-enabled digital twin of Lame for 36 months, authorising the creation of new content that replicates his face, voice, and behavioural patterns using generative AI. Unlike a conventional brand assignment or licensing deal, Lame is licensing his digital twin, which is a dynamic asset. Lame might do reputational harm by his own conduct during the 36-month period. Equally, the licensee may harm Lame’s personal reputation by deploying Lame’s digital replica at scale, which may make Lame’s appearance on platforms inauthentic or potentially discounted as “AI-slop” by Lame’s followers. 

AI digital twins as an emerging asset: watch points for deal parties

AI-generated identities are emerging as a distinct asset class, raising novel issues for deal parties. We highlight three key areas that deal parties should keep in mind.

Looking ahead

AI digital twins sit at the intersection of technology, commerce, and identity. The UK’s legal framework is playing catch-up, and the patchwork of existing protections was never designed for this purpose. 

Trade mark filings, however comprehensive, cannot substitute for a dedicated personality right: trade mark law protects marks, not identity. The UK Government’s reform agenda is welcome but until then individuals and deal parties will likely need to rely on contractual protections.

For individuals: act early, protect what you can, and take specialist advice before signing away any element of your likeness. For brands and investors: the opportunity is real, but so are the risks. 

At Macfarlanes, we act for both investors and prominent individuals in commercial agreements and licensing arrangements involving personality rights. If you would like to discuss legal strategy in this space, please get in touch.