Right of Publicity Laws: State-by-State Overview (2026)

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.

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.