In an era of influencer marketing, celebrity endorsements, and AI-generated deepfakes, the question of who controls the use of a person’s image has never been more important. Yet in the UK, the law on image rights remains a patchwork of different rules rather than a single, clear framework.

So, is it time for a change? Let’s look at where the law stands today, why it’s under pressure, how other countries are responding, and what the UK might do next.

1. The current UK position – a patchwork approach

Unlike some jurisdictions, the UK does not recognise a standalone “image right.” Instead, individuals and businesses must rely on a mix of legal tools:

Passing off

This is the route celebrities often use if their image is used in a way that suggests endorsement.

    • Rihanna v Topshop (2013) is the leading case: Topshop sold T-shirts with Rihanna’s photo, and she successfully argued that fans could think she had approved them.
    • Similarly, in Irvine v Talksport (2002), Eddie Irvine won damages after a doctored image implied he endorsed the radio station.

    But passing off only works if you can prove goodwill and misrepresentation. If someone uses your image without implying endorsement—or if you’re not famous enough to show goodwill—you have no claim.

    Privacy and misuse of private information

    This protects private images used without consent.

    • In Campbell v MGN, Naomi Campbell stopped publication of photos of her leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting.
    • In Douglas v Hello!, Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones enforced their exclusive OK! Magazine wedding photo deal when Hello! published unauthorised pictures.

    These cases show the courts will protect privacy—but only where the images were confidential. If you’re in public, your image can usually be used without consent.

    Data protection

    Images and voices can count as personal data under UK GDPR, giving rights like access or erasure. But enforcement is slow and doesn’t deal neatly with commercial exploitation.

    Copyright

    Copyright protects the photo itself, not the person in it. Unless you took the photo or own the copyright, you don’t control how it’s used.

    Trade marks

    Celebrities often register names or logos—Cristiano Ronaldo’s “CR7” is a good example. But protection is limited to the goods or services registered.

    Contracts and consent

    The most practical tool. Celebrities and influencers often sign agreements controlling how their image can be used. But contracts only bind the parties—they don’t stop outsiders from misusing your image.

    The result? A fragmented system that works in some cases but leaves big gaps.

    2. Criticisms of the current approach

    There are four main criticisms:

    • Uncertainty - without a statutory image right, outcomes are unpredictable. Rihanna beat Topshop, but a small change in facts and she might have lost.
    • Famous vs ordinary people - passing off and trade marks work for celebrities, but not for someone whose holiday snap ends up in an ad or whose face becomes a viral meme. Many argue this should be about basic dignity—everyone should have some control over their own likeness.
    • Tech gaps - the law is struggling to keep up with advances in digital media. Deepfakes are a prime example: in one high-profile case, fraudsters cloned the voice and image of the WPP plc CEO to try to trick employees into setting up a new business and transferring funds. Similarly, in 2023, an AI-generated song mimicking Drake and The Weeknd’s voices (“Heart on My Sleeve”) went viral after being released on streaming platforms by an anonymous creator known as Ghostwriter977. Because deepfakes are not genuine recordings or images, current UK laws are not well-equipped to address these challenges.
    • No post-mortem protection - once someone dies, their image can be used commercially without the estate’s control, unless there is some IP protection. That feels out of step with other countries, where families can control and benefit from a loved one’s legacy.

    In short, many argue that the UK system feels like an analogue patchwork trying to deal with very digital problems.

    3. How other countries do it

    Other jurisdictions have taken a clearer line:

    • France and Germany - image rights are tied to privacy and personality. The general rule: you need someone’s consent to publish their photo, with exceptions for news reporting and public events. It’s about dignity as much as commercial value.
    • The US - many states recognise a “right of publicity,” which means you can control and profit from the commercial use of your name, likeness or voice. In states like California, that right even continues for decades after death—allowing estates of celebrities like Elvis or Marilyn Monroe to control commercial uses long after they’ve passed away.
    • Guernsey - closer to home, Guernsey created the world’s first Image Rights Register in 2012. Individuals can register their name, likeness and other characteristics as property rights.
    • Denmark - in 2025, Denmark introduced a law giving people copyright-style ownership of their face, voice and likeness. It’s aimed squarely at AI and deepfakes, with 50 years of protection after death, but with exceptions for satire and parody. This is one of the most modern, tech-driven approaches we’ve seen.

    4. What the UK could do next

    So—time for a change? A few options are being discussed:

    • Introduce a statutory image right - a clear law giving individuals control over the commercial use of their identity. This could apply to everyone, not just celebrities, with carve-outs for journalism and satire.
    • Deepfake-specific rules - given the urgency, the UK could act faster here, banning harmful creation or sharing of AI likenesses and putting duties on tech platforms to remove them quickly – akin to the approach taken by Denmark.
    • Modernise existing tools - passing off could be adapted to deal more easily with online endorsement. Performers’ rights could be extended to synthetic imitations. Data protection could be clarified to cover realistic AI likenesses.

    The challenge is striking the right balance—protecting individuals without stifling free expression or creativity.

    Final thoughts

    Right now, the UK relies on a patchwork—workable in some cases, but not designed for today’s digital world. Other countries are modernising fast, and the UK faces a choice: keep patching, or create a clear statutory framework.

    For businesses—especially those working with influencers, brand ambassadors, or sports personalities—it’s worth reviewing contracts now to make sure they deal explicitly with likeness and synthetic media. Even before reform, that’s the best way to manage risk.

    Contributors

    Alison Bryce

    Partner

    Ally Burr

    Senior Associate