Using Someone Else's Likeness in Advertising

Marketers reach for real faces because they work — a recognizable person builds trust and attention faster than anything you can invent. But the moment you use a real, identifiable individual to sell something, you step into their right of publicity, and getting it wrong is one of the most expensive mistakes in advertising. This guide covers when you need consent, what a release must cover, and the traps — sound-alikes, implied endorsements, and stock photos — that catch marketers who thought they were safe.

When do you need consent to use someone’s likeness?

The controlling right here is the right of publicity: a person’s right to control the commercial use of their identity. It is a matter of state law, recognized by statute or common law in roughly half of U.S. states, and its core trigger is commercial use — using someone’s identity to advertise, promote, or sell goods or services.

The plain rule for advertisers is this: if a real, identifiable person appears in or is invoked by your ad, get written consent. That applies whether the person is a paid model, a famous athlete, one of your own employees, or a happy customer. “Identifiable” is broad — it includes not just a full-face photo but a name, a nickname, a voice, a signature, a distinctive catchphrase, or even a recognizable body or persona.

You generally do not need consent for genuine editorial, news, or expressive uses (more on that line below), or when a person is an incidental, unidentifiable part of a crowd. But if any reasonable viewer could look at your ad and say “that’s [person],” assume you need a release. For the doctrine itself, see what is the right of publicity, and the broader right of publicity and NIL guide for how these rights fit together.

What must a model or talent release cover?

A release is the document that turns “person in a photo” into “person you may lawfully advertise with.” A weak or narrow release is nearly as dangerous as no release, because it may not cover the way you actually use the content. A solid release should address:

• Who is granting rights — the model, and if a minor, a parent or legal guardian.
• What is being licensed — the specific photos, video, name, voice, and likeness captured.
• How you may use it — the media (print, digital, broadcast, social), the territory (worldwide vs. limited), and the duration (perpetual vs. a fixed term).
• The purpose — critically, whether use includes advertising and commercial promotion, not just “editorial” use.
• Modifications — permission to crop, edit, composite, or digitally alter the image, which matters enormously in the AI era.
• Compensation and a statement that the release is a binding contract.
• A waiver of claims for right of publicity, invasion of privacy, and defamation arising from permitted uses.

For celebrities, athletes, and influencers you’ll negotiate a full talent or endorsement agreement rather than a one-page release, covering exclusivity, approval rights, morals clauses, and the term of the endorsement. Whatever the format, the release must actually reach the use you have in mind — a release for a website “about us” page does not authorize a paid ad campaign.

Can you use a celebrity look-alike or sound-alike?

This is where clever marketing goes to die. Advertisers sometimes try to capture a star’s aura without paying by hiring an impersonator, a sound-alike singer, or staging a scene that “reminds” people of a celebrity. Courts have repeatedly shut this down, because the right of publicity protects identity, not merely a photograph.

The leading cases are worth knowing:

• Midler v. Ford Motor Co. (9th Cir. 1988). Ford wanted Bette Midler for a car commercial; when she declined, it hired a backup singer to imitate her rendition of “Do You Want to Dance.” The court held that deliberately imitating a distinctive, widely known voice to sell a product is actionable.
• Waits v. Frito-Lay (9th Cir. 1992). After Tom Waits — famously opposed to endorsements — refused, Frito-Lay used a sound-alike for a SalsaRio Doritos radio spot. Waits won a substantial verdict, including punitive damages.
• White v. Samsung Electronics (9th Cir. 1992). A Samsung ad featured a robot in a blonde wig, gown, and jewelry turning letters on a Wheel of Fortune–style set. No name, no photo, no voice — yet the court found the ad evoked Vanna White’s identity enough to go to trial.

The lesson: if the whole point of your creative is to make people think of a specific celebrity, you likely need their consent — even if you never use their actual name, face, or voice. Digital and AI recreations raise the same problem in sharper form; see AI, deepfakes, and the right of publicity.

What is “implied endorsement,” and why is it a separate risk?

Right of publicity is only half the exposure. Using a person — especially a celebrity — in a way that falsely suggests they endorse your product can also violate the federal Lanham Act, § 43(a) (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), which prohibits false or misleading representations likely to cause confusion about sponsorship or approval.

That means an advertiser can face two overlapping claims from one ad: a state right-of-publicity claim (you used my identity) and a federal false-endorsement claim (you made people think I backed your product). Because Lanham Act claims are federal, they can be brought nationwide and carry their own remedies, including profits, damages, and in exceptional cases attorney’s fees.

Practical guardrails:

• Don’t juxtapose a person’s image or name with your product so as to imply a relationship that doesn’t exist.
• Avoid “customers like [famous person] love us” framing.
• If you do have a real endorsement, follow the FTC Endorsement Guides — disclose material connections, keep claims truthful, and use only genuine experiences. Our guide on influencer and brand deals under FTC rules covers this in depth.

Where is the line between newsworthy use and commercial use?

The First Amendment protects news, commentary, satire, biography, art, and other expressive works, so you don’t need Taylor Swift’s permission to write about her concert or run her photo in a news story. The right of publicity is designed for commercial exploitation, not reporting or expression.

The line turns on the primary purpose of the use:

• Protected (usually no consent needed): genuine news reporting, editorial articles, documentaries, biographies, and transformative artistic works that add significant creative expression rather than merely reproducing the person’s likeness.
• Not protected (consent needed): using a person’s identity as the “hook” to draw attention to a product, in an ad, on packaging, or on merchandise.

Watch two danger zones. First, “advertorial” content that looks editorial but exists to sell blurs the line and is treated as commercial. Second, using a real news photo of someone in your ad — even a clip of legitimate coverage — converts a protected use into a commercial one. When a use is mixed, courts weigh whether the identity is being used to inform or to sell. Browse real disputes in our right of publicity case archive to see how courts apply this.

Do stock photos and licenses protect you?

A common and costly assumption is that buying a stock license clears you to use the image however you like. It does not. A stock license grants copyright permission — your right to reproduce the photograph. It does not, by itself, grant the depicted person’s right of publicity.

That’s why reputable stock libraries divide images into two buckets:

• Commercial / “royalty-free” images are backed by a signed model release from the people shown, so they can be used in advertising and promotion.
• Editorial images carry no model release and are licensed only for news, commentary, and non-commercial illustrative use. Using an editorial image in an ad breaches the license and exposes you to a publicity claim.

Even a released commercial image has limits. Standard stock licenses typically prohibit uses that are defamatory, “sensitive,” or that imply endorsement — you generally cannot make a model appear to personally endorse your brand, or depict them in connection with sensitive topics (health conditions, political messaging, adult content) without an enhanced release. Always read the specific license, confirm a model release exists for any ad use, and keep a copy on file. The same caution applies to AI-generated images that resemble real people; see using AI images and music commercially.

What are the penalties for getting it wrong?

The exposure is real and, in some states, statutory. California is the benchmark — see California’s right of publicity law for the full statutory scheme:

• California Civil Code § 3344 makes knowing use of another’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness for advertising or selling without consent actionable, with statutory damages of at least $750, plus the plaintiff’s actual damages, any profits you made from the use, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party.
• California also protects the deceased: Civil Code § 3344.1 (the Astaire Celebrity Image Protection Act) extends publicity rights for 70 years after death, so “they’ve passed away” is not a safe assumption.
• A parallel common-law appropriation claim exists in California and many other states, and Lanham Act false-endorsement claims add federal remedies on top.

Beyond damages, courts can enjoin the campaign — forcing you to pull ads, packaging, and creative you’ve already paid to produce and distribute, which is often the most painful cost of all. Because publicity law varies widely by state and remedies stack, the economics almost always favor getting a release up front.

The bottom line

Using a real person to sell something is powerful and, done right, perfectly legal — but it runs on consent. Before any identifiable individual appears in or is evoked by an ad, get a written release or endorsement agreement that actually covers advertising, your media, your territory, and your term. Don’t try to sidestep the rule with a look-alike or sound-alike; the Midler, Waits, and White cases show courts see through it. Treat stock licenses as copyright clearance only, confirm a model release for any commercial use, and disclose real endorsements under FTC rules. When in doubt, get the signature — it costs far less than pulling a campaign and paying § 3344 damages.

This guide is general education, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Right of publicity and advertising law vary significantly by state, and celebrity and endorsement deals carry contract-specific risks — consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction before running a campaign.