A recognisable voice or likeness can be central to a performer’s career, and generative AI is creating new ways to use those attributes, from synthetic voices to convincing digital appearances. For actors, musicians and the businesses working with them, these developments present commercial opportunities while raising questions about who can authorise those uses and who should benefit.
AI systems can imitate voices, recreate appearances and emulate artistic styles using models trained on existing material. However, the legal protection available depends on more than how closely the result resembles a particular person. Copyright, performers’ rights and other safeguards protect different interests, leaving some forms of imitation harder to challenge than others.
For lawyers advising the creative industries, the implications reach across intellectual property, licensing and talent agreements. Understanding where existing rights apply – and what contracts can achieve – is becoming an important part of managing the commercial value of creative identity.
The limits of existing UK protections
UK law protects creative works, recorded performances, business goodwill and personal information, but it does not provide a general right to control every use of an individual’s voice or likeness. AI has brought that distinction into sharper focus by making convincing digital replicas easier to create and distribute.
Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, protection extends to original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, as well as sound recordings, films and other specified categories. The protection attaches to the work itself, rather than to a person’s voice, appearance or artistic style.
Copyright may protect a singer’s recording and, separately, the music and lyrics, without giving anyone an exclusive right over the singer’s vocal characteristics. A new recording that imitates their voice will not necessarily infringe copyright simply because the resemblance is convincing, although it may infringe if it copies the whole or a substantial part of protected material without permission or an applicable exception. Copying during AI training raises a separate question, as an output that does not infringe copyright does not establish that the training material was lawfully used. The performer may also be someone other than the owner of the recording’s copyright.
Other areas of law provide additional safeguards. Performers’ rights protect qualifying performances and certain uses of recordings of them, while passing off may provide a remedy for false endorsement where goodwill, misrepresentation and damage can be established. Registered trade marks may also offer protection where the relevant commercial use infringes the registration. These protections do not, however, amount to an unrestricted right over a recognisable identity.
Data protection law is relevant where personal data is processed, including when identifiable voice or image material is used to develop an AI system. Privacy and confidentiality claims may also arise, depending on the circumstances. Each requires separate consideration, and permission under a talent agreement does not remove the need to comply with data protection law.
The result is a framework in which a remedy depends on what has been copied, how material has been obtained and used, and what the audience has been led to believe. For performers whose voice or likeness carries considerable commercial value, that can leave a gap between a recognisable imitation and an enforceable claim.
Could the UK introduce a digital replica right?
In March 2026, the Government published its Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, which recognised gaps in protection against unauthorised digital replicas and proposed exploring a range of responses, including whether a new digital replica or personality right would be beneficial. This was a commitment to consider options, rather than a decision to introduce a particular right.
Other jurisdictions have adopted different approaches. In the United States, state publicity laws provide varying protections against unauthorised exploitation of an individual’s identity. Tennessee’s 2024 Ensuring Likeness, Voice and Image Security (ELVIS) Act extended its existing protections to identifiable voices, including simulations, subject to statutory conditions and exceptions for certain expressive uses.
A new UK right could give individuals a more direct means of challenging certain unauthorised replicas and a stronger basis for negotiating authorised uses. Its practical value would depend on who it protected, which activities required permission, and how it balanced that protection with legitimate expression. Whether the right could be assigned or licensed, how long it lasted and how it interacted with existing agreements would also have commercial implications.
In a written parliamentary answer on 23 October 2026, the Government said a consultation on digital replicas would launch before the end of the year. The eventual approach remains open, including whether reform would create a targeted digital replica right, a broader personality right or another form of protection.
Commercialising creative identity
Alongside the debate over legal reform, performers and rights holders are already negotiating commercial uses of AI. These arrangements can combine licences of existing intellectual property with permission to use a person’s voice or likeness, setting boundaries around use and agreeing how those involved will be paid.
In November 2025, Warner Music Group and Udio announced an agreement resolving their copyright infringement litigation and establishing a framework for a licensed AI music creation service. According to the announcement, the planned service would use models trained on licensed music and allow users to create remixes, covers and new songs using the voices of participating artists and compositions of participating songwriters, who would be credited and paid.
Individual performers have also entered into agreements concerning AI uses of their voices. In September 2024, Meta announced celebrity voice options for its AI assistant, including Dame Judi Dench and John Cena, following reported agreements with the performers. These arrangements demonstrate the commercial value of negotiated permission to use a distinctive voice, without depending on the existence of a general UK voice right.
For advisers, the scope of those permissions requires careful consideration, particularly the distinction between using recordings to train a model and using that model to produce new material. Agreements can also address approval of particular uses, payment, onward licensing and what happens when the arrangement ends. These questions are especially important where an existing contract predates the proposed AI use.
While contracts can impose obligations on the relevant parties and require safeguards against misuse, they do not, by themselves, create a general right enforceable against unrelated third parties. Nor can one agreement necessarily clear every right involved, as a project may require permissions from performers, recording owners and other rights holders.
Looking ahead
Existing rights remain relevant to digital replicas, but their application will not always give performers control over convincing imitations of their voice or likeness. A new right could supplement those protections, although its practical effect would depend on both its scope and its enforceability.
For lawyers advising the creative industries, the immediate challenge is to translate these issues into clear commercial arrangements: establishing who can authorise a proposed use, whether existing agreements cover it, and how control and remuneration should be allocated.
Legislative reform may provide additional protection against unauthorised replicas. In the meantime, careful negotiation can establish the permitted uses of a performer’s voice or likeness, the approvals required and the payment arrangements that apply. The terms of those agreements will therefore remain important to how performers retain control over authorised uses and share in their commercial value.
Advising on IP and the creative industries?
As AI reshapes how voices, likenesses and creative works are used, firms need lawyers who can turn complex rights questions into clear commercial agreements. Whether you’re looking to strengthen your IP, media or entertainment team, or considering your next move in this area, Emily Donnell would be happy to talk.
Get in touch with Emily Donnell
