In a world where personal identity is becoming an increasingly valuable commercial asset, personality rights are developing into a significant legal issue – impacting music, gaming and celebrity branding, and exposing both the adaptability and limits of current UK intellectual property (IP) law.

From Taylor Swift’s voice, Matthew McConaughey’s iconic catchphrase "Alright, alright, alright!", or Luke Littler’s face, high-profile celebrities and professional athletes are increasingly seeking to protect personal attributes and control the commercial use of their identity. The business of protecting an individual's persona and likeness has never been more visible - or more valuable.

UK position

In contrast to certain jurisdictions with statutory provisions addressing personality rights (e.g Denmark, France and Germany), the UK does not go so far as to recognise personal identity as a standalone legal right. Instead, protection remains fragmented, relying on a patchwork of existing registered and unregistered IP rights - most notably copyright, trade marks and passing off. The existing framework has arguably been sufficient in purpose to date, however, recent technological advances and commercial realities are exposing the gaps in the UK’s current legal framework. Digital replication, AI‑generated likenesses and virtual avatars may fall outside of existing concepts of confusion or copyright infringement yet still cause significant reputational and economic damage.

These issues have attracted policy attention. In its recent report on AI and copyright ¹, the UK Government acknowledged the growing concern concerning harms arising from the use of AI to create digital replicas or 'deep fakes' of individuals, including the replication of voices, likenesses and other personal attributes. The Government recognised that such issues may not be adequately addressed by existing copyright law and, while noting these concerns, confirmed that it does not propose legislative reform at this stage. Instead, it stated that it would continue to monitor developments and consider potential options.

Sector focus: music and video games

In the absence of reform, both individuals and businesses are left to operate within the existing legal framework, and the music industry provides a clear illustration of its limits. Concerns around personality rights are increasingly being raised alongside broader debates concerning AI, copyright and fair remuneration, particularly where generative tools are capable of reproducing an artist’s voice, sound or artistic identity without copying a specific copyright work. A recent example involved the Welsh band Holding Absence, whose likeness and musical style were reportedly replicated in connection with the AI‑generated music project Bleeding Verse. The AI‑generated project rapidly accrued a larger streaming audience than the original band, highlighting the damage that can arise for artists.

Similar issues have been identified across the sector, particularly by performers, session musicians and voice artists, for whom voice, style and personal identity are central professional assets. While established artists may be able to leverage novel IP strategies, such as trade marking their face, these approaches are far less viable for smaller or emerging artists. The result is a growing disparity: those with scale and brand recognition are better positioned to protect their identity, while others remain exposed to potential exploitation.

When it comes to the video games sector, the use of real‑world likenesses, voices and personas has become central to player experience and commercial value. Games heavily incorporate identity markers through realistic athlete avatars, celebrity collaborations and AI generated characters. Legal protection in this area has typically been addressed through licensing arrangements, trade mark strategies and passing off claims. However, as the industry leans further into AI and digital replication, these existing routes do not always neatly apply.

A standalone personality right has been proposed as a solution to address issues that may arise more directly. Although, questions around how “style” would be defined in legal terms, and how such a right would interact with existing protections, would require careful consideration.

Looking ahead

For now, the Government has adopted a cautious, watch‑and‑wait approach to questions concerning personality rights, with a commitment to continued monitoring and further evidence‑gathering. Jurisdictions such as Denmark - which has amended its copyright law to give individuals enforceable rights over AI‑generated imitations of their face, voice and other personal attributes - offer a potential reference point, demonstrating how these issues might be addressed within legislation. At the same time, the recent steps taken by high‑profile figures to protect their identity through trade marks and licensing arrangements point to a growing appetite for clearer protection.  Indeed, the number of NIL (name. image, likeness) trade mark applications being filed has steadily increased in recent years and may potentially be seen as defensive filings against AI-generated content that uses such personal attributes.

Whilst there are several tools available to individuals to prevent unauthorised use of their personal attributes, the idea that these tools alone (or in combination) are sufficient ways to protect and enforce rights against such acts is unfounded. Whether that momentum ultimately results in a standalone personality right under UK law remains to be seen, but issues of personal identity, legal protection and commercial use look set to remain a hot topic for some time to come.

¹  Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, (18 March 2026) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/report-and-impact-assessment-on-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence/report-on-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence.