A recent lawsuit highlights the legal risks of using an individual’s image without permission in branding and advertising.
As marketing strategies continue to evolve, particularly across digital platforms, businesses must be mindful of the legal risks associated with the unauthorized use of likeness. More are increasingly leveraging recognizable faces and personal brands to promote products. However, using an individual’s name, image, or likeness without proper authorization can create significant legal exposure.
A recent lawsuit illustrates how these issues can arise, and why businesses should approach this area carefully.
The Allegations
The case involves a well-known entrepreneur and public figure who alleges that a company used his likeness to promote and sell products, including sleep and breathing aids. According to the complaint, the company incorporated his image into product packaging, social media branding, and even merchandise such as apparel.
The plaintiff claims that this use was unauthorized and continued despite repeated requests to stop.
Additionally, the complaint alleges that the defendants were aware of the plaintiff’s established association with similar products and sought to benefit from that connection. This raises concerns not only about unauthorized use, but also about potential consumer confusion and implied endorsement.
Key Legal Issues
1. Right of Publicity
At the center of the dispute is the concept of likeness rights, often referred to as the “right of publicity.” This legal principle protects an individual’s ability to control how their name, image, and identity are used for commercial purposes.
Using someone’s likeness in marketing without permission, particularly to sell products, can lead to liability under both statutory and common law frameworks.
2. False Endorsement Under the Lanham Act
The lawsuit also raises claims under the Lanham Act, specifically relating to false endorsement.
Even if a business does not explicitly state that a person endorses a product, liability can arise if the use of their likeness:
- Suggests affiliation or approval
- Creates confusion among consumers
- Trades on the individual’s established reputation
This is especially relevant where the individual already has a known connection to similar products or industries.
3. Use of AI-Generated or Altered Images
An additional layer in this case involves allegations that the company used altered or AI-generated imagery and argued that the likeness did not actually depict the individual.
This reflects a growing issue in modern IP law:
Whether modified or AI-generated representations can still infringe on likeness rights.
Courts are increasingly being asked to consider whether:
- The image is recognizable
- Consumers would reasonably associate it with the individual
- The use creates the same commercial impact as a direct likeness
Why This Matters for Businesses
This case serves as a reminder that likeness rights are not limited to celebrities in traditional advertising campaigns. They can arise in a wide range of contexts, including:
- Product packaging
- Social media branding
- Digital advertising
- Merchandise and collateral goods
Even informal interactions or prior communications with an individual do not substitute for clear, documented permission.
Key Takeaways
Businesses should keep the following in mind:
- Authorization matters: Always obtain clear, written consent before using someone’s name or image in marketing.
- Avoid assumptions: Prior conversations or industry associations do not equal permission.
- Consider perception: If consumers could reasonably believe there is an endorsement, legal risk increases.
- Be cautious with AI tools: Altered or generated images may still raise legal concerns if they are recognizable.
As branding and marketing continue to evolve, so do the legal risks associated with them. The use of an individual’s likeness whether direct, modified, or implied should be approached with careful consideration and proper legal guidance.
This case highlights how quickly marketing strategies can cross into legal exposure when authorization, clarity, and boundaries are not properly established.
