Right of Publicity Laws: State-by-State Overview (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
The right of publicity is a state-law property right that controls who may use a person's name, image, likeness, or voice for commercial purposes, and it is not the same in every state. Some states protect it by statute, some only through case law, and the postmortem term can run from 10 years to 70 years depending on which state's law applies.
Information last verified on 2026-08-13. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
This page is a general overview of right-of-publicity law across the states, how it differs from a privacy right, how postmortem protection varies, and how AI digital-replica laws have amended it since 2024. It links out to Deepfake & AI Voice Cloning Laws by State and the individual state deepfake pages for the specific AI-era statutory detail, rather than re-deriving a full 50-state table here.
What Is the Right of Publicity?
The right of publicity is a person's legal interest in controlling the commercial use of their own identity, most commonly their name, image, likeness, or voice. It developed out of privacy law but works differently: a privacy claim is about being left alone or not having private facts exposed, while a right-of-publicity claim is about someone else profiting from a person's identity without permission. Because it functions as a property right rather than a personal one, it can typically be licensed during a person's life, and in many states it can be inherited after death the way other property interests can.
Some states protect the right entirely through a statute that spells out its scope, remedies, and postmortem term. Others recognize it only through case law, built up over individual court decisions rather than a legislature's text. A number of states, including Tennessee, recognize both a statutory right and an overlapping common-law right, with courts still working out exactly how the two interact.
Statutory Versus Common-Law Protection: Why the State You're In Matters
More than half of the states recognize the right of publicity through a statute, through common law, or through some combination of both, but that summary understates how much the practical protection can differ. A state with a detailed statute, like California or New York, generally offers clearer remedies, a defined postmortem term, and specific exemptions for news, commentary, and expressive works written into the text. A state that recognizes the right only through common law, like Michigan, leaves those same questions to case-by-case judicial development, which tends to mean less predictable outcomes and, for postmortem claims specifically, real uncertainty about whether the right survives death at all until a court actually decides it.
Michigan is a useful illustration. It has no statutory right of publicity. Its right of publicity exists only through case law, and while federal courts applying Michigan law have treated the right as descendible after death, no Michigan state court had definitively ruled on that question as of this writing. A family relying on Michigan's common-law right after a relative's death is relying on an area of law that has not been fully settled by the state's own courts, a materially different position than a family in a state with an explicit postmortem statute.
For a detailed, regularly updated state-by-state classification, Rothman's Roadmap to the Right of Publicity, maintained by Professor Jennifer Rothman, is the leading academic survey and covers each state's statutory status, common-law status, and postmortem treatment individually.
Postmortem Right of Publicity: How Long Does It Last After Death?
Among the states that protect the right of publicity after death, the duration varies enormously, and a handful of the most-cited examples show just how wide that range is.
| State | Statute | Postmortem Term | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | Civ. Code § 3344.1 | 70 years after death | Longest term among the states compared here; amended in 2024 to add digital-replica provisions, effective January 1, 2025 |
| Texas | Prop. Code ch. 26 | 50 years after death | Applies to deaths on or after January 1, 1937; voice is explicitly covered |
| New York | Civ. Rights Law § 50-f | 40 years after death | Covers name, voice, signature, and photograph |
| Tennessee | ELVIS Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1101 et seq. | Minimum 10 years after death | Continues while the voice or likeness stays in commercial use; can run indefinitely if exploitation never lapses for two consecutive years |
A state with no postmortem right-of-publicity statute, or one that recognizes the right only through common law, may have no settled duration at all, or may leave open whether the right survives death in the first place, the way Michigan's does. That gap matters most for a deceased performer's estate deciding whether, and where, it can act against an unauthorized use of a name, voice, or likeness.
"An action shall not be brought under this section by reason of any use of a deceased personality's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness occurring after the expiration of 70 years after the death of the deceased personality." California Civil Code § 3344.1(a) (verified 2026-08-13)
How AI Digital Replicas Have Changed the Landscape
Generative AI's ability to recreate a real person's voice or visual likeness with no underlying recording of that person forced a wave of amendments to right-of-publicity law starting in 2024, and this is the area where the landscape has moved fastest.
Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1101 et seq., effective July 1, 2024) was the first state law written specifically to extend a right of publicity to AI simulations of a person's voice. It defines «voice» broadly enough to reach a pure AI simulation with no underlying recording of the real person, extends liability to anyone distributing a tool whose primary purpose is producing unauthorized replicas, and has become the model several other states have cited when drafting their own AI voice-cloning protections.
California passed two AI-specific amendments in a single day, September 17, 2024. AB 1836 requires a deceased performer's estate to consent before a «digital replica», a computer-generated, highly realistic representation of a person's voice or visual likeness, is used in a new expressive audiovisual work or sound recording; it became effective January 1, 2025, and sets damages at the greater of $10,000 or actual damages for an unauthorized use. AB 2602 addresses living performers instead, barring a contract clause from authorizing a digital replica of a performer's voice or likeness without informed, specific consent negotiated with proper representation; it took effect January 1, 2025.
These are amendments to right-of-publicity law, not a separate legal category, and they sit alongside a growing list of other states extending similar AI voice or likeness protections since 2024, including Montana, Arkansas, Washington, Illinois, and Pennsylvania's differently structured «digital forgery» criminal statute. The full state-by-state AI voice and likeness comparison, along with sexual deepfake and election deepfake coverage, is maintained on Deepfake & AI Voice Cloning Laws by State rather than repeated here; for Tennessee's law in particular, see Tennessee Deepfake Laws.
Right of Publicity, Deepfakes, and Recording Consent Are Different Questions
These three legal frameworks intersect often but answer different questions. Recording-consent law (one-party versus all-party consent, covered on this site's US Recording Laws by State) governs whether a recording of a conversation was made lawfully in the first place. Deepfake law, covered by the criminal and civil statutes on the deepfake laws hub, governs whether creating or distributing an AI-generated depiction of someone is itself illegal, particularly for sexual or election-related content. The right of publicity governs a narrower, older question: whether someone else may commercially use a person's name, image, likeness, or voice at all, AI-generated or not. A voice clone built from a lawfully made recording can still violate a state's right-of-publicity statute even though the underlying recording broke no law.
Enforcement and Remedies
Right-of-publicity claims are typically civil, not criminal, and remedies generally include injunctive relief to stop further use, actual damages, and disgorgement of any profits the unauthorized user made. States with newer AI-specific amendments have started adding criminal exposure on top of the traditional civil remedy: Tennessee has made knowing unauthorized use a Class A misdemeanor since the original 1984 act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1105(b)), and the ELVIS Act extended that criminal exposure to voice, including AI simulations, by adding voice to the conduct defined in subsection (a), and Pennsylvania's 2025 «digital forgery» law is structured as a criminal fraud offense rather than a civil property right at all. Because remedies, exemptions (news, commentary, satire, and biographical works are commonly exempted, with the specific wording varying by state), and the standard for liability all depend on which state's law applies, this is not an area where a general answer safely substitutes for reading the specific state's statute or, where no statute exists, its case law.
Related Resources
- Deepfake & AI Voice Cloning Laws by State covers the full 50-state comparison for sexual deepfakes, election deepfakes, and AI voice or likeness rights, including every state law that amends or extends the right of publicity for AI-generated replicas.
- Tennessee Deepfake Laws covers the ELVIS Act in full statutory depth, including its definitions, tool-liability provision, remedies, and fair-use exemptions.
- AI Laws by State covers the broader landscape of state AI regulation beyond right of publicity and deepfakes.
Last updated: 2026-08-13.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the right of publicity?
It is a legal right, recognized by statute or common law depending on the state, that lets a person (or their estate) control the commercial use of their name, image, likeness, or voice. It is distinct from a privacy right, which protects against intrusion rather than unauthorized commercial exploitation.
Does every state have a right of publicity law?
Most states recognize some form of it, by statute, by common law, or both, but the strength and clarity of the protection varies. Michigan, for example, recognizes the right only through case law, with no statute defining its scope, which generally means less predictable remedies than a state with a detailed statute like California or New York.
How long does a right of publicity last after death?
It depends entirely on the state. California protects it for 70 years after death (Civ. Code § 3344.1), Texas for 50 years (Prop. Code ch. 26), New York for 40 years (Civ. Rights Law § 50-f), and Tennessee's ELVIS Act for a minimum of 10 years, extendable while the voice or likeness stays in commercial use. States without a specific postmortem statute, and states that only recognize the right at common law, often have no settled duration at all.
How have AI deepfakes changed right of publicity law?
States have amended existing right-of-publicity statutes, or passed new ones, to reach AI-generated «digital replicas» that were never actually recorded. California's AB 1836 (deceased performers) and AB 2602 (living performers) both took effect January 1, 2025. Tennessee's ELVIS Act was the first state law written specifically for AI voice cloning. See the deepfake laws hub for the full state-by-state comparison.
Is the right of publicity the same as a privacy right?
No. A privacy right generally protects a person from intrusion or unwanted disclosure. The right of publicity is a property right that lets a person control and profit from the commercial use of their own identity, and it can be licensed, and in many states inherited, the way other property rights can.
Where can I find a state-by-state right of publicity survey?
Rothman's Roadmap to the Right of Publicity, maintained by Professor Jennifer Rothman of the University of Pennsylvania, is the most detailed academic 50-state survey available, covering whether each state's right is statutory, common law, or both, along with postmortem status.
Updates
Corrected the effective date of California AB 1836, the deceased-performer digital replica law, to January 1, 2025, and clarified that Tennessee’s Class A misdemeanor for unauthorized use predates the ELVIS Act, which extended it to voice.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
California Civil Code
§ 3344.1In forcecited in 5 of our articles
(a) (1) (A) Subject to subparagraph (B), a person who uses a deceased personality’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods, or services, without prior consent from the person or persons specified in subdivision (c), shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by the injured party or parties, as a result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing these profits, the injured party or parties shall be required to present proof only of the gross revenue attributable to the use, and the person who violated the section shall prove the person’s deductible expenses.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 38 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Franklin Mint Co. v. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP (California Court of Appeal 2010, 184 Cal. App. 4th 313)“…blicity (Civ. Code, former § 990, amended and renumbered as Civ. Code, § 3344.1); (4) false advertising under the Lanha…”
- Alterra Excess & Surplus v. Estate of Buckminster Fuller (California Court of Appeal 2015, 234 Cal. App. 4th 1390)“…(3) unauthorized use of name and likeness in violation of California Civil Code section 3344.1; and (4) violation of California Busine…”
- Crosby v. HLC Properties, Ltd. (California Court of Appeal 2014, 223 Cal. App. 4th 597)“…ure, in 1984, superseded the holding through the passage of Civil Code section 3344.1. 5 The Trust also asserted cause…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Name and Likeness Licensing Agreement Template, California Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026), Can You Defame a Dead Person? US Defamation Law After Death (2026)
Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 47, Chapter 25, Part 11: Protection of Personal Rights (Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act of 2024)
§ 47-25-1105Unauthorized use prohibitedIn forcecited in 7 of our articles
(a) (1) Any person who knowingly uses or infringes upon the use of an individual's name, photograph, voice, or likeness in any medium, in any manner directed to any person other than such individual, for purposes of advertising products, merchandise, goods, or services, or for purposes of fundraising, solicitation of donations, purchases of products, merchandise, goods, or services, without such individual's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of such minor's parent or legal guardian, or in the case of a deceased individual, the consent of the executor or administrator, heirs, or devisees of such deceased individual, is liable to a civil action. (2) A person is liable to a civil action if the person publishes, performs, distributes, transmits, or otherwise make
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at publications.tnsosfiles.com
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2019
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Apple Corps Ltd. v. A.D.P.R., Inc. (1993) held that a Beatles tribute act's use of the members' names in advertising violated section 47-25-1105(a), while use of the names in the performance itself did not. Gibbons v. Schwartz-Nobel (1996) applied Tennessee's one-year limitations period to claims under the Act.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Gracey v. Maddin (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1989, 769 S.W.2d 497)“…y must prove that the defendants' conduct is proscribed by Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1105 (a). This section provides that Any p…”
- Crystal BLACKWELL, as Next Friend to Jacob Blackwell, a Minor v. SKY HIGH SPORTS NASHVILLE OPERATIONS, LLC (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 2017, 523 S.W.3d 624)“…iving a parent authority to consent to a minor’s marriage); Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1105 (giving parents the authority to solici…”
- Wells v. Chattanooga Bakery, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 2014, 448 S.W.3d 381)✓Wells, photographed as a boy in the 1970s, sued when the image was used decades later to market MoonPie and RC Cola. Finding nothing in the photo identified him, the court held his 47-25-1105 right-of-publicity claim was preempted by the Copyright Act and affirmed dismissal.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Tennessee Laws on Recording in Public: What You Can and Cannot Film, Tennessee Data Privacy Laws: TIPA Consumer Rights Guide (2026), Tennessee Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)
§ 47-25-1101Short titleIn forcecited in 54 of our articles
This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act of 2024.” History Acts 1984, ch. 945, § 1; 2024, ch. 588, § 1.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-05-21 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2011
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts cite 47-25-1101 et seq. as the Personal Rights Protection Act of 1984. Gibbons v. Schwartz-Nobel (1996) applied a one-year limitations period because the Act supplies none, and STATE EX REL. ELVIS PRESLEY INTL. MEMORIAL FOUNDATION v. Crowell (1987) said nothing in the Act limits publicity rights vested before its effective date.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Gracey v. Maddin (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1989, 769 S.W.2d 497)✓A widow sued her late husband's law firm under the Personal Rights Protection Act to stop its use of his surname; the Court of Appeals affirmed an injunction on partnership and name-assignment grounds, and the majority opinion never applied the Act's own provisions.
- STATE EX REL. ELVIS PRESLEY INTL. MEMORIAL FOUNDATION v. Crowell (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1987, 733 S.W.2d 89)✓Two nonprofits fought over using Elvis Presley's name in their corporate names; the court rested his descendible right of publicity on Tennessee common law rather than the Personal Rights Protection Act, and said nothing in the Act limits rights vested before its effective date.
- Gibbons v. Schwartz-Nobel (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1996, 928 S.W.2d 922)✓A woman sued over a book that named her and printed her childhood photo, and over a related TV film; the Court of Appeals held the Personal Rights Protection Act sets no limitations period of its own, applied the one year period, and affirmed summary judgment.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Tennessee Video Recording Laws: What Is Legal and What Is Not, Tennessee Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights, Deepfake & AI Voice Cloning Laws by State (2026)
California Labor Code
§ 927In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) A provision in an agreement between an individual and any other person for the performance of personal or professional services is unenforceable only as it relates to a new performance, fixed on or after January 1, 2025, by a digital replica of the individual if the provision meets all of the following conditions: (1) The provision allows for the creation and use of a digital replica of the individual’s voice or likeness in place of work the individual would otherwise have performed in person. (2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the provision does not include a reasonably specific description of the intended uses of the digital replica. (B) Failure to include a reasonably specific description of the intended uses of a digital replica does not render the provision unenforceable if the uses are consistent with the terms of the contract for the performance of personal or professional services and the fundamental character of the photography or soundtrack as recorded or performed.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Also relied on in: AI Voice Cloning Laws: The ELVIS Act and the States That Followed (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- California Civil Code § 3344.1, Use of Deceased Personality's Name, Voice, Photograph or Likeness(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- New York Civil Rights Law § 50-f, Right of Publicity for Deceased Individuals(nysenate.gov).gov
- Texas Property Code, Title 4, Chapter 26, Use of a Deceased Individual's Name, Voice, Signature, Photograph, or Likeness(statutes.capitol.texas.gov).gov
- Tennessee ELVIS Act, Public Chapter 588 (2024), codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1101 et seq.(publications.tnsosfiles.com).gov
- California AB 1836 (2024), Use of Likeness: Digital Replica(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Rothman's Roadmap to the Right of Publicity, Jennifer E. Rothman, University of Pennsylvania(rightofpublicityroadmap.com)
- Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, California Enacts a Suite of New AI and Digital Replica Laws(manatt.com)
- California Labor Code § 927, Digital Replica Contract Provisions (added by AB 2602, Stats. 2024, Ch. 259, effective January 1, 2025)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)