Part 2 - AI Replica Rights and Entertainment Contracts: What Entertainment Companies Should Be Doing Now

In Part One of this series, we explored the proposed NO FAKES Act and the growing push toward a federal framework governing AI-generated voice and likeness replicas. While the legislation remains pending, its momentum highlights an issue that entertainment companies, talent representatives, and lawyers are already confronting: how should contracts address AI-generated performances and digital replicas?

Consent Will Become the Center of the Analysis

If the bill becomes law, consent will likely become the central drafting issue. Entertainment lawyers should expect more detailed provisions addressing whether, when, and how a person’s voice or likeness may be digitally replicated.

A well-drafted AI replica consent clause should not simply say that a producer may use a performer’s “name, image, and likeness.” It should address, at minimum:

The most important practical takeaway is that AI replica consent should be express, specific, and use-case driven.

Practical Steps for Entertainment Companies Now

Even though the NO FAKES Act is not yet law, entertainment companies do not need to wait before updating their practices. The legal direction of travel is already visible.

Studios, labels, production companies, agencies, and platforms should consider the following steps:

1. Audit existing contracts. Identify whether current agreements clearly address AI-generated voice, likeness, and performance rights. Many older agreements will not.
2. Separate publicity rights from AI replica rights. Avoid relying on generic name, image, and likeness language for synthetic performances. Treat AI replica rights as their own category.
3. Build consent workflows. Require written approval before creating or distributing a digital replica of a performer, artist, influencer, or other identifiable person.
4. Update vendor agreements. AI vendors, VFX houses, dubbing providers, localization vendors, marketing agencies, and social-media contractors should be contractually prohibited from creating unauthorized replicas.
5. Add representations and indemnities. If a third party delivers AI-generated content, require representations that all necessary voice, likeness, training, and output rights have been obtained.
6. Create internal review standards. Companies should know who approves AI replica uses internally. Legal, business affairs, talent relations, production, and marketing may all need to be involved.
7. Plan for takedowns. Platforms and rightsholders should prepare procedures for identifying unauthorized replicas and responding to takedown requests or counter-notices.
8. Track state law developments. Even if a federal law passes, state right-of-publicity, privacy, false endorsement, unfair competition, and deepfake laws may continue to play an important role.

Practical Steps for Talent and Representatives

Performers and their representatives should also adapt.

Talent-side agreements should expressly reserve AI replica rights unless they are intentionally granted. Where rights are granted, the agreement should specify the exact permitted uses, approval rights, compensation, and restrictions.

For actors, this may mean limiting digital doubles to the specific production, scene, or technical purpose for which they are created. For musicians, it may mean prohibiting synthetic vocals, AI training, or voice cloning without separate written consent. For influencers and public figures, it may mean restricting use of likeness in AI-generated ads, endorsements, or interactive experiences.

Representatives should also pay close attention to post-term and posthumous rights. If AI rights are granted too broadly, a performer’s voice or likeness could potentially be exploited long after the original engagement ends.

The Deal Point of the Future

The NO FAKES Act is not just another AI bill. It signals that voice and likeness rights are moving from the margins of entertainment contracts to the center of negotiations.

For years, entertainment lawyers have asked: Who owns the copyright? Who controls distribution? Who has approval? Who receives royalties? AI replicas add a new question: Who controls the digital version of the person?

That question will affect film, television, music, advertising, video games, podcasts, audiobooks, live performance, social media, and emerging immersive formats.

The smartest industry participants will not wait for final legislation before acting. They will start drafting as though AI replica rights are real, valuable, and separately negotiable because, commercially, they already are.

Conclusion

The NO FAKES Act may or may not pass in its current form, but its momentum reflects a broader shift in entertainment law. AI has made identity replicable. The law is now trying to determine who gets to authorize, monetize, restrict, and remedy that replication.

For entertainment lawyers, the immediate task is practical: update contracts, clarify consent, review AI workflows, and treat digital replica rights as a standalone asset. Whether representing talent, producers, studios, labels, or platforms, the next generation of entertainment deals will need to answer a deceptively simple question with much greater precision:

When a person’s voice or likeness can be recreated by machine, who has the right to say yes?

The contents of this publication are intended for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion on specific facts and circumstances. Copyright 2026.