August 18, 2025 • 30 mins
Reimagining Intellectual Property in the Age of Luxury Tech: I’m curating this exclusive side event in Geneva on September 1 during the Luxury Innovation Summit. Limited seats, apply now to join the conversation.
On this episode, we discuss how the explosive growth of the influencer economy has created a fascinating new frontier in intellectual property law, where personal brands clash with corporate interests and digital avatars raise unprecedented legal questions.
This episode unpacks the high-stakes IP battles reshaping the $20 billion influencer industry, revealing how savvy creators protect their most valuable asset, their identity. Through compelling case studies like Charli D'Amelio's strategic trademark registrations and the legendary "Battle of the Kylies" between Jenner and Minogue, we explore how influencers transform fleeting social media fame into lasting, legally-protected brand equity.
But the legal landscape doesn't just apply to human influencers. We venture into the uncanny valley of virtual personalities like Lil Miquella and Noonoouri, examining how these digital beings, composed entirely of intellectual property, navigate contracts, licensing, and disclosure requirements. As luxury brands increasingly embrace these pixel-perfect ambassadors who never age and never sleep, the boundaries between creative assets and personas continue to blur.
The global response to these challenges reveals fascinating cultural and legal differences. From Tennessee's groundbreaking AI-ELVIS Act protecting voice rights to China's comprehensive regulations on "deep synthesis" content, we witness how legal frameworks worldwide are evolving to address deepfakes, digital cloning, and the ownership of virtual identities.
Whether you're an influencer building your personal brand, a marketer navigating partnership agreements, or simply curious about the legal infrastructure behind social media fame, this episode offers crucial insights into who truly owns your digital presence—and how to protect it. Remember: in the high-stakes world of influence, the law isn't here to rain on your parade; it's here to ensure you own the parade itself.
Subscribe now to explore the intersection of intellectual property and digital influence, and join us at the Luxury Innovation Summit 2025 in Geneva this September for our special event on IP in the age of luxury technology.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Today's episode has it all clout-chasing creators,
name-snatching rivals, brandsghosting their own campaigns and
AI-generated fashionistas thatnever age and never sleep.
We're diving into the lawsuits,contracts and policies shaping
the influencer economy, both forhumans and their pixel-perfect
clones.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible Law, playing talkabout intellectual property.
Please welcome your host,Leticia Caminero.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Welcome back to Intangiblia.
I'm your host, leticia Caminero.
This week's episode is inspiredby an event I'm curating right
here in Geneva reimaginingintellectual property in the age
of luxury tech the officialside event at the Luxury
Innovation Summit 2025.
If you happen to be around onMonday 1 September at 11am, join
(01:00):
us at Restaurant Le Cercle deDuron at Faire Geneva.
We'll talk about where luxurybrands and technology meet and
occasionally collide, and that'sexactly what today's topic is
about the IP rules, battles andcreative chaos behind
influencers, real and virtual,who sell us everything from lip
gloss to NFTs.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Before we get too deep, a quick disclaimer I am an
AI co-host, not a lawyer.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
And I am a lawyerhost , not a lawyer.
And I am a lawyer, but not yourlawyer.
And I'm also a cloned AI voicewhich means this episode is just
for information purposes only.
Let's start simple.
Influencers are basicallypersonal brands in motion.
That means their names, facesand content can be protected
(01:47):
under intellectual property law.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
And virtual influencers.
They're like brand mascots onsteroids.
They're entirely constructedfrom IP their face, their voice,
their wardrobe, even the codethat makes them blink.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Exactly which makes them valuable assets and prime
targets for legal disputes.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
Plus in a $20 zero cents billion a year.
Influencer industry.
We're not just talking aboutwho gets the best selfie light.
We're talking serious money,brand trust and reputations,
both human and synthetic.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
Let's start with Charli D'Amelio.
She is one of TikTok's biggeststars over 100 million followers
, endless brand deals, and she'sbarely in her 20s.
But Charli also did somethingthat a lot of influencers wait
too long to do she filed formultiple trademarks on her own
name early.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
So she basically called dibs on herself.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Pretty much In 2020,.
Right as her fame exploded, sheand her legal team filed
applications with the US Patentand Trademark Office to cover
Charli Amalia for everythingfrom clothing and cosmetics to
entertainment services.
That meant she wasn't justprotecting her name for TikTok
(03:07):
videos, she was locking it downfor merch beauty products, even
potential TV shows.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
That's like turning your name into a legal fortress.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
Exactly Because here's the risk Once your name
starts trending, opportunistswill file for it, hoping to
either block you or force abuyout.
We've seen it happen Peoplerush to register celebrity names
for unrelated products, thentry to cash in by filing early.
Charlie avoided messyopposition battles and made sure
(03:41):
any fake Charlie hoodie sellerswould be in clear infringement
territory.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
And it's not just about stopping fakes, it's about
controlling your future.
If she ever launches Charlieperfume or a dancewear line, she
already owns the rights to thename in that category.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
Right.
It's a textbook example of howinfluencers can use trademark
law to turn a fleeting moment offame into a lasting brand, and
do it before someone else ownsyour identity.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
So moral of the story trademark first, tiktok later.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
Next up Kim Kardashian's SKN fight, which is
a perfect reminder that eventhe most famous names can hit a
legal wall.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
Wait, are we talking about the time she tried to
launch her own skincare empireand ran into a Brooklyn
roadblock?
Speaker 3 (04:31):
Exactly In 2022, kim announced her new brand, skn by
Kim.
Clean, minimalist packaging,luxury positioning and instantly
a global headline.
But here's the catch InBrooklyn, there was already a
beauty salon and spa called SkinPlus, run by Sidney Lonsford,
(04:52):
that had been using that namefor years and had its own
trademark application on file.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
So the little salon that could was suddenly facing
the Kardashian legal machine.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
Right, and they didn't just sit quietly.
Scan Plus filed a trademarkopposition, arguing that Kim's
brand would cause consumerconfusion.
From a trademark law standpoint.
They had a solid point Sameindustry, almost identical name.
Overlapping customer base inthe US is about first use in
(05:26):
commerce, not first to make ittrend on Instagram.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
And Kim's fame actually works against her here.
The bigger your reach, thehigher the chance people will
assume you made the otherproduct.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
Exactly.
The dispute turned into a PRnarrative.
Was this a case of trademarkbullying or just an unfortunate
coincidence?
Reports say the two sideseventually reached a
confidential settlement, but itdelayed and complicated Kim's
launch.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
So moral of the story even if your brand is by Kim,
you still need a clearancesearch before you emboss it on a
thousand jars of moisturizer.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
Right.
Fame gives you influence, butin trademark law, prior rights
win.
And then there's the one I liketo call the battle of the
Kylie's Kylie Jenner versusKylie Minogue.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
Two Kylie's enter, one Kylie leaves with a
trademark.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
In 2015, Kylie Jenner , reality TV star, turned beauty
mogul.
Applied to trademark just theword Kylie in the United States
for cosmetics and relatedproducts.
Her goal was to lock down thename for her growing makeup
empire.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
Her goal was to lock down the name for her growing
makeup empire.
Seems straightforward, unlessyou've been Kylie.
Speaker 3 (06:50):
Minogue.
Since the 1980s Exactly, kylieMinogue, grammy-winning
Australian pop star,internationally famous long
before Instagram existed,already had her own trademarks
for Kylie, covering perfumes,clothing and entertainment
services.
When Jenner's application hitthe US Patent and Trademark
Office, minogue's legal teamfiled an opposition and they
(07:15):
didn't hold back.
Not at all.
The filing famously referred toJenner as a secondary reality
television personality andwarned that granting the mark to
her could cause confusion withMinogue's established brand.
It was equal parts legalargument and subtle jab jab.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
Ouch, that's the kind of line that gets highlighted
in court documents and onTwitter.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
The position was based on prior rights.
Minogue had been using Kyliecommercially for decades, with
registered trademarks and globalbrand recognition In trademark
law.
That's gold.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
So this wasn't about who had more followers.
It was about who had first dibsin the legal sense.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
Exactly.
After some legal back and forth, they settled in 2017.
Terms were confidential, butboth continued using their names
in their respective domains,suggesting they carved out
peaceful coexistence.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Listen, trademark law doesn't care about your reality
show ratings.
It cares about prior use andthe likelihood of confusion.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
And maybe, just maybe , it also cares about avoiding a
pop star dragging you in apublic filing.
Okay, now for one of thestrangest influencer battles
I've seen the so-called sad pagelawsuit.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Is that the one where someone basically tried to
copyright an aesthetic?
Speaker 3 (08:49):
Exactly In 2024, influencer Sini Nicole Guiford
sued another influencer, AlisaShield, claiming Shield copied
her entire sad beige.
Look on Instagram.
We're talking muted neutrals,minimalistic product shots, even
similar poses and captions.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
So beige handbags, beige coffee cups, beige
sweaters.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
Beige everything.
Gifford argued it went beyondcoincidence.
She claims straight dressrights in the overall look and
feel of her feed.
That's unusual because tradedress usually applies to product
packaging or store design, notsomeone's curated Instagram grid
.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
Let me guess she also alleged copyright infringement.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
She did.
The complaint said Shield'sposts were strikingly similar
and that her photos andaesthetic choices were original
works protected by copyright.
This was, according to themagistrate, possibly the first
lawsuit of its kind betweeninfluencers over social media
style.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
Did she win the right to own Beige?
Speaker 3 (09:57):
Not exactly.
The case never went to a fulltrial.
They reportedly reached aconfidential settlement, but
legal commentators wereskeptical from the start.
The general view was you canprotect specific photos or
designs, but you can't copyrighta vibe.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
Which is good news, because, if you could, half of
Pinterest would be in courtright now.
Speaker 3 (10:18):
Right, but it's still a landmark in the sense that
influencers are now trying touse IP law not just to protect
their names but their aesthetics.
Even if the law doesn't fullystretch that far yet, it shows
where the next creative disputesmight pop up.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
And the takeaway.
Own your photos, sure, butdon't expect to trademark the
entire color palette of a coffeeshop.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
All right.
Last, stop on the real humanside the right of publicity or,
depending on where you are,image rights, portrait rights or
personality rights rights.
Basically, your legal power tosay no when someone tries to
profit off your name face orlikeness without permission.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
In other words, if someone slaps your face on a
billboard for cheese graters andyou've never even used a cheese
grater you might have a caseand influencers need to
understand this, because theirbrand is literally their
identity.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
because their brand is literally their identity.
Let's start with Kim Kardashianv Old Navy.
Back in 2012, old Navy ran a TVad with a model who looked a
lot like Kim Dark hair,glamorous outfit, even similar
mannerisms.
Kim sued, claiming it createdthe false impression.
She endorsed the brand.
That's a classic right ofpublicity claim under US state
(11:42):
law.
They settled, but it reinforcedthe point.
Lookalikes in ads can land youin court.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
So basically, if you're going to hire a
doppelganger, make sure it's fora costume party, not a campaign
.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
Exactly Now in the UK .
There's no standalone imageright, but celebrities can use
Pass Enough to fightunauthorized merch.
Rihanna v Topshop is the bigexample.
Topshop sold T-shirts withRihanna's image.
They licensed the photo from aphotographer but not from
Rihanna herself.
She sued, arguing customerswould think she approved the
(12:15):
shirts and she won.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
So no image right in the UK.
But if you can prove the publicwill think you endorsed it.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
You've still got a weapon Exactly.
And then there's China's civilcode, which came into effect in
2021.
It explicitly gives people theright to control their likeness
and voice.
That means in China, using aninfluencer's photo or even a
voice recording for commercialpurposes without consent is flat
out illegal, with very limitedexceptions like news reporting
(12:46):
or public interest art.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
So in China you can't just pull a random influencer's
video clip for your ad and hopeno one notices.
Speaker 3 (12:54):
Not unless you enjoy lawsuits.
These cases and the laws behindthem show that protecting your
image isn't just for A-listcelebrities anymore.
For influencers, your likenessis your livelihood, and knowing
how it's protected where youoperate is crucial.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
And if you go global, you better know which countries
will back you up and which oneswill just let someone else
profit off your smile.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
All right time to leave the realm of ring lights
and reality TV and step into theuncanny valley.
Virtual influencers and AIavatars.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Ah yes, the ones who never sleep, never age and never
get caught subtweeting their ex.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Exactly these digital personalities are entirely made
of intellectual property theirface, their voice, their
wardrobe, even the software codethat makes them blink.
That's why the biggest questionis who owns them?
Take Lil Miquella, for example.
(13:58):
She's a CGI girl with millionsof followers, brand deals with
Prada and Calvin Klein and a popmusic career, but she's not a
person.
She's the creation of a companycalled Brew, which owns her
image, voice and storylines, theway Disney owns Mickey.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Mouse.
So in legal terms she's a brandmascot who can sing and throw
shade, exactly.
And then you've got Nunuri, astylized virtual fashion
influencer who's done campaignswith Dior, versace and
Balenciaga.
She was created by a graphicdesigner in Germany and licensed
to brands, just like youlicense a cartoon character for
(14:38):
an ad.
But here's where it gets tricky.
These characters can beimitated or outright stolen,
just like human influencers.
And then there's the darkerside deep fakes, like the case
of Michelle Jancy, right.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Right.
Michelle Jancy is a lifestylevlogger who discovered her
likeness had been hijacked in afake ad for an erectile drug,
complete with a deep, fakedvideo of her speaking in her own
bedroom.
It looked real, but she hadnothing to do with it.
Tom Hanks had a similar problemwhen a deepfake version of him
(15:12):
popped up in an unauthorizeddental plan ad.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
It's the influencer nightmare.
You wake up and your face isselling something you've never
heard of.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
Exactly, and this is where law is scrambling to keep
up In the US.
Some states have passed lawsagainst this.
Tennessee's AIL-VIS Act in 2024was the first to explicitly
protect people's voices andlikenesses from AI mimicry
without consent for both theliving and the dead.
California and New York areconsidering similar protections,
(15:46):
especially for actors, modelsand public figures.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law.
Playing talk about intellectualproperty.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
And in China they've gone even further with their
deep synthesis rules.
You can't use someone's imageor voice in AI generated content
without their consent, andanything AI altered has to be
clearly labeled.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Right.
It's not just about stoppingfakes, it's about transparency,
and that applies to real andvirtual influencers alike.
Applies to real and virtualinfluencers alike.
Even if your avatar is entirelyfictional, ad regulators expect
(16:30):
you to disclose when content issponsored.
The FTC in the US has made itclear that ad rule doesn't
vanish just because theinfluencer is pixels.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
So, basically, whether you're carbon-based or
code-based, the rules are thesame Don't use someone's
likeness without permission,don't mislead your audience and,
yes, put that hashtag in there.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
Exactly.
Virtual influencers might avoidhuman scandals, but they open
up new legal battles overownership, imitation and
disclosure, and those battlesare only getting started, all
right.
So whether your influencer ishuman or pixel, perfect, once
(17:07):
the contracts are signed, youthink the hard part's over.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
Oh, my sweet summer child.
Speaker 3 (17:13):
Exactly Because influencer brand partnerships
can go from dream collab tolegal nightmare faster than you
can say unpaid invoice.
Let's start with the classicbreach of deliverables.
Back in 2018, fashioninfluencer Lucas Zavatt signed a
$60,000 or cents deal topromote Snap Inc's spectacles
(17:37):
during Fashion Week.
The deal required fourInstagram posts and an
appearance at certain eventswearing the glasses.
Savat got $45,000, zero centsup front posted once, skipped
the rest and went about his life.
The PR firm sued for breach ofcontract, demanding the money
(17:57):
back plus damages.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Translation if you're getting paid to post, you can't
just not post, right?
These days, brands protectthemselves by holding part of
the payment until the campaign'scomplete.
No posts, no final check.
Then there's exclusivitybreaches.
Contracts often say you can'tpromote a competitor for a set
time before and after a campaign.
Say you can't promote acompetitor for a set time before
(18:23):
and after a campaign.
If you're the face of onesports drink, you can't pop up
sipping another on TikTok thenext week.
Do it anyway and the brand canterminate the deal, claw back
payments or, if they're feelingspicy, sue, and those clauses
can be sneakily broad.
No competitor can sometimesmean no other product in the
same general category, whichcould be half your fridge.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
Exactly.
Then there's the morals clause,the escape hatch for brands
when their influencer goes offscreen.
In real life, it coversanything that could tarnish the
brand's reputation.
That's how brands droppedYouTuber Logan Paul after his
infamous 2018 video, or endedlucrative partnership with Kanye
(19:03):
West when controversy becametoo costly, which is why some
luxury brands secretly lovevirtual influencers.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
No off the cuff tweets.
No paparazzi scandals justprogrammable perfection.
Scandals just programmableperfection.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
And lately we're seeing a new legal front
consumer class actions.
In early 2025, brands likeCelsius, revolve and Alo Yoga
and the influencers they hiredwere hit with lawsuits, alleging
they failed to disclose thatcertain posts were sponsored.
Plaintiffs claim that missingad tags tricked consumers into
(19:44):
thinking the endorsements weregenuine, leading them to buy
products at premium prices.
Speaker 1 (19:51):
So it's not just the FTC sending warning letters
anymore, it's your own followersfiling lawsuits.
Speaker 3 (19:57):
Exactly, and whether you're a human influencer or a
CGI avatar, the disclosure rulesare the same.
If you're paid to promote, youhave to tell people clearly and
conspicuously.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
Bottom line deliver the post, respect exclusivity.
Stay out of scandal and slapthat ad where everyone can see
it.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
Now, if there's one industry that has really leaned
into influences, human andvirtual, it's luxury fashion.
And when they stepped into themetaverse, it's not just about
selling clothes, it's aboutcrafting a whole digital fantasy
and controlling it down to thelast pixel, because that's what
couture level micromanagementlooks like.
(20:39):
Exactly.
Take Balma's virtual model armyback in 2018.
Shudu, Markai and Zee,hyper-realistic digital models
who starred in the brand'scampaigns.
Shudu, for example, looks solifelike that many people
thought she was a real model.
She wasn't.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
She was entirely CGI, owned and operated by a
creative agency, which meansBalma didn't have to deal with
last minute cancellations, hairemergencies or diva demands,
Just render, retouch and release.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
Then there is Prada, who went even more interactive.
They handed over theirInstagram account to Lil Miquela
during Milan Fashion Week in2018.
She posted from shows, wore thecollection and interacted with
fans as if she were really there.
And the genius is no travelbudget, no jet lag and she'll
(21:37):
never get caught wearing a rivalbrand on her day off.
Dayur has worked repeatedlywith Norvi, another virtual
influencer, who's been styled ineverything from haute couture
gowns to streetwear collabs andLouis Vuitton, even put Final
Fantasy video game characterlining in a campaign, complete
with a handbag that matched herpixel-perfect battle gear.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
Talk about crossovers .
That's like if a Marvelsuperhero showed up in a Gucci
ad.
Speaker 3 (22:02):
IB Dynamics here are fascinating.
When a luxury brandcollaborates with a virtual
influencer, they aren't justpaying for a photo shoot, they
are licensing a character.
That means negotiating usagerights, creative control and
sometimes exclusivity.
For example, a brand mightinsist that the avatar can
(22:23):
appear wearing a competitor'sdesigns for a set period, just
like with human models.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
And let's not forget if the brand creates original
digital assets, say a virtualdress designed specifically for
the avatar, the contract has todecide who owns that.
Does it stay with the brand ordoes the avatar's creator get to
reuse it?
Speaker 3 (22:43):
Exactly.
These deals are part talentcontract, part licensing
agreement and part contentproduction deal.
And for brands, virtualinfluencers have one big
advantage over humans totalnarrative control.
They want age change stylewithout approval or get caught
in a public scandal, unlesstheir creators script it that
(23:06):
way.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
Though in a way the metaverse is the ultimate PR
dream, perfectly unbannedforever.
Speaker 3 (23:12):
But, as you can imagine, that much control also
raises IP stakes.
If a collaboration goes bad,you can't just replace the face.
You might have to untangle whoactually owns the character's
image, voice and storylinebefore you can move on.
We've talked about the cases,the brands, the avatars.
(23:34):
Now let's zoom out to the bigpicture.
How are laws and policiesaround the world shaping the
future of influence, both humanand virtual?
Speaker 1 (23:47):
And the good news is there's a lot happening.
Different countries arebuilding their own toolkits to
help protect names, faces anddigital doubles names, faces and
digital doubles.
Speaker 3 (24:03):
In the United States, the framework is a mix of
state-level rights and federalguidance.
Over 30 states recognize aright of publicity, meaning
individuals can control howtheir name, image and likeness
are used commercially.
Some even extend this to voiceand posthumous rights, giving
long-term protection to creativelegacies.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
And new developments are coming fast.
Tennessee's Elvis Act in 2024was the first US law to clearly
address AI cloning of voices andlikenesses.
California, new York and othersare exploring similar measures.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission keeps
influencer marketing clear andtransparent through its
endorsement guides.
They've made it simple Ifyou're being paid, label it so
audiences can make informedchoices.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
That's a principle that works across borders.
Speaker 3 (24:58):
Clarity builds trust In the European Union.
Many member states alreadyprotect personal likeness
through privacy or personalityrights.
France, germany, spain andothers have strong consent
requirements before someone'simage can be used commercially
(25:21):
used commercially and theupcoming AI Act adds another
layer requiring disclosure forAI-generated or altered content
that could be mistaken for real.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
That's especially relevant for virtual influencers
, since it supports transparencywithout limiting creativity.
Speaker 3 (25:32):
China has integrated image and voice rights into its
civil code since 2021, makingconsent a clear part of the
process.
The deep synthesis provisionsbuild on that by ensuring that,
if AI is used to create or altera likeness, audiences are
informed and the person'sapproval is obtained.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
As a practical approach.
It gives room for innovation,but makes sure creators and the
public know what's authentic andwhat's synthetic.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
Japan recognizes personality rights to court
decisions, which allows forflexible interpretation as
technology evolves.
These rights cover the use ofsomeone's image in commercial
contexts and cultural norms.
Also emphasize respect for orcreate identity.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
India has seen courts protect celebrity likenesses
and names from unauthorized use,and the Advertising Standards
Council of India's influencerguidelines encourage clear,
upfront disclosure inadvertising.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
Across Latin America.
Countries like Brazil, mexicoand Argentina treat image rights
as part of constitutional orcivil code protections.
Courts there have awardeddamages for unauthorized use,
supporting both established andemerging public figures.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
And in South Africa, image and personality rights are
recognized under both commonlaw and the constitution, with
data protection rules that canalso apply to biometric
information like facial imagesor voice prints.
Speaker 3 (27:05):
Australia and New Zealand approach the issue
through consumer protection andpassing off laws.
This ensures that if someone'simage or persona is used in a
way that could mislead consumers, there's a clear path to
address it.
Speaker 1 (27:21):
So, while the legal paths may vary, the shared goal
is the same supporting creators,protecting identities and
building trust betweeninfluencers, brands and
audiences.
Speaker 3 (27:33):
whether the influencer is human, animated or
entirely AI generated, humananimated or entirely AI
generated, and that shared goalis a solid foundation for future
policies that can keep pacewith the creative and commercial
power of influence.
All right time to land thisplane with our five takeaways.
Speaker 1 (27:55):
Or five hashtags you might want to tattoo on your
legal strategy.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
One trademark, early trademark, smart.
If your name, slogan or avataris part of your brand, register
it before someone else does.
That goes for real names, stagenames and even the names of
your virtual creations.
Cold dips before the copycatsdo.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
It's faster and cheaper than buying it back
later.
Two contracts aren't justpaperwork, they're your playbook
.
Spell out deliverables,deadlines, exclusivity and what
happens if something goes wrong,whether you're the influencer
or the brand.
Clarity up front savescourtroom drama later.
Think of it as your prenup forclout Three disclosure is your
(28:41):
friend.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
A clear ad or pay partnership tag isn't just
compliance, it's trust buildingwith your audience.
Hidden disclosures can cost youfollowers money and, yes, legal
fees.
Honesty is influencer currency.
Spend it wisely.
Speaker 1 (29:00):
Four protect your likeness, carbon or code your
face, your voice, your vibe.
If it's you or a creation ofyou, guard it.
That means consent for use,Watching for fakes and
understanding your rights in themarkets you operate.
Even pixels need personalboundaries.
Five virtual doesn't meanrisk-free Avatars, deepfakes and
(29:25):
AI influencers have the same IPand brand safety issues as
humans, sometimes more.
Treat them like any otherhigh-value asset Register,
license, monitor and protect,because in the metaverse, the
brand you save might be your own.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
So, whether you're chasing clout or creating clones
, the law is not here to rain onyour parade.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
It's here to make sure you own the parade and that
the parade isn't sellingknockoff handbags with your name
on them.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the
podcast of intangible lawplaying.
Talk about intellectualproperty.
Did you like what we talkedtoday?
Please share with your network.
Do you want to learn more aboutintellectual property?
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(30:15):
Visit our websitewwwintangibliacom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
Today's episode has it all clout-chasing creators,
name-snatching rivals, brandsghosting their own campaigns and
AI-generated fashionistas thatnever age and never sleep.
We're diving into the lawsuits,contracts and policies shaping
the influencer economy, both forhumans and their pixel-perfect
clones.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible Law, playing talkabout intellectual property.
Please welcome your host,Leticia Caminero.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Welcome back to Intangiblia.
I'm your host, leticia Caminero.
This week's episode is inspiredby an event I'm curating right
here in Geneva reimaginingintellectual property in the age
of luxury tech the officialside event at the Luxury
Innovation Summit 2025.
If you happen to be around onMonday 1 September at 11am, join
(01:00):
us at Restaurant Le Cercle deDuron at Faire Geneva.
We'll talk about where luxurybrands and technology meet and
occasionally collide, and that'sexactly what today's topic is
about the IP rules, battles andcreative chaos behind
influencers, real and virtual,who sell us everything from lip
gloss to NFTs.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Before we get too deep, a quick disclaimer I am an
AI co-host, not a lawyer.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
And I am a lawyerhost , not a lawyer.
And I am a lawyer, but not yourlawyer.
And I'm also a cloned AI voicewhich means this episode is just
for information purposes only.
Let's start simple.
Influencers are basicallypersonal brands in motion.
That means their names, facesand content can be protected
(01:47):
under intellectual property law.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
And virtual influencers.
They're like brand mascots onsteroids.
They're entirely constructedfrom IP their face, their voice,
their wardrobe, even the codethat makes them blink.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Exactly which makes them valuable assets and prime
targets for legal disputes.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
Plus in a $20 zero cents billion a year.
Influencer industry.
We're not just talking aboutwho gets the best selfie light.
We're talking serious money,brand trust and reputations,
both human and synthetic.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
Let's start with Charli D'Amelio.
She is one of TikTok's biggeststars over 100 million followers
, endless brand deals, and she'sbarely in her 20s.
But Charli also did somethingthat a lot of influencers wait
too long to do she filed formultiple trademarks on her own
name early.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
So she basically called dibs on herself.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Pretty much In 2020,.
Right as her fame exploded, sheand her legal team filed
applications with the US Patentand Trademark Office to cover
Charli Amalia for everythingfrom clothing and cosmetics to
entertainment services.
That meant she wasn't justprotecting her name for TikTok
(03:07):
videos, she was locking it downfor merch beauty products, even
potential TV shows.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
That's like turning your name into a legal fortress.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
Exactly Because here's the risk Once your name
starts trending, opportunistswill file for it, hoping to
either block you or force abuyout.
We've seen it happen Peoplerush to register celebrity names
for unrelated products, thentry to cash in by filing early.
Charlie avoided messyopposition battles and made sure
(03:41):
any fake Charlie hoodie sellerswould be in clear infringement
territory.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
And it's not just about stopping fakes, it's about
controlling your future.
If she ever launches Charlieperfume or a dancewear line, she
already owns the rights to thename in that category.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
Right.
It's a textbook example of howinfluencers can use trademark
law to turn a fleeting moment offame into a lasting brand, and
do it before someone else ownsyour identity.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
So moral of the story trademark first, tiktok later.
Speaker 3 (04:16):
Next up Kim Kardashian's SKN fight, which is
a perfect reminder that eventhe most famous names can hit a
legal wall.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
Wait, are we talking about the time she tried to
launch her own skincare empireand ran into a Brooklyn
roadblock?
Speaker 3 (04:31):
Exactly In 2022, kim announced her new brand, skn by
Kim.
Clean, minimalist packaging,luxury positioning and instantly
a global headline.
But here's the catch InBrooklyn, there was already a
beauty salon and spa called SkinPlus, run by Sidney Lonsford,
(04:52):
that had been using that namefor years and had its own
trademark application on file.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
So the little salon that could was suddenly facing
the Kardashian legal machine.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
Right, and they didn't just sit quietly.
Scan Plus filed a trademarkopposition, arguing that Kim's
brand would cause consumerconfusion.
From a trademark law standpoint.
They had a solid point Sameindustry, almost identical name.
Overlapping customer base inthe US is about first use in
(05:26):
commerce, not first to make ittrend on Instagram.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
And Kim's fame actually works against her here.
The bigger your reach, thehigher the chance people will
assume you made the otherproduct.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
Exactly.
The dispute turned into a PRnarrative.
Was this a case of trademarkbullying or just an unfortunate
coincidence?
Reports say the two sideseventually reached a
confidential settlement, but itdelayed and complicated Kim's
launch.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
So moral of the story even if your brand is by Kim,
you still need a clearancesearch before you emboss it on a
thousand jars of moisturizer.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
Right.
Fame gives you influence, butin trademark law, prior rights
win.
And then there's the one I liketo call the battle of the
Kylie's Kylie Jenner versusKylie Minogue.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
Two Kylie's enter, one Kylie leaves with a
trademark.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
In 2015, Kylie Jenner , reality TV star, turned beauty
mogul.
Applied to trademark just theword Kylie in the United States
for cosmetics and relatedproducts.
Her goal was to lock down thename for her growing makeup
empire.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
Her goal was to lock down the name for her growing
makeup empire.
Seems straightforward, unlessyou've been Kylie.
Speaker 3 (06:50):
Minogue.
Since the 1980s Exactly, kylieMinogue, grammy-winning
Australian pop star,internationally famous long
before Instagram existed,already had her own trademarks
for Kylie, covering perfumes,clothing and entertainment
services.
When Jenner's application hitthe US Patent and Trademark
Office, minogue's legal teamfiled an opposition and they
(07:15):
didn't hold back.
Not at all.
The filing famously referred toJenner as a secondary reality
television personality andwarned that granting the mark to
her could cause confusion withMinogue's established brand.
It was equal parts legalargument and subtle jab jab.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
Ouch, that's the kind of line that gets highlighted
in court documents and onTwitter.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
The position was based on prior rights.
Minogue had been using Kyliecommercially for decades, with
registered trademarks and globalbrand recognition In trademark
law.
That's gold.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
So this wasn't about who had more followers.
It was about who had first dibsin the legal sense.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
Exactly.
After some legal back and forth, they settled in 2017.
Terms were confidential, butboth continued using their names
in their respective domains,suggesting they carved out
peaceful coexistence.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Listen, trademark law doesn't care about your reality
show ratings.
It cares about prior use andthe likelihood of confusion.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
And maybe, just maybe , it also cares about avoiding a
pop star dragging you in apublic filing.
Okay, now for one of thestrangest influencer battles
I've seen the so-called sad pagelawsuit.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Is that the one where someone basically tried to
copyright an aesthetic?
Speaker 3 (08:49):
Exactly In 2024, influencer Sini Nicole Guiford
sued another influencer, AlisaShield, claiming Shield copied
her entire sad beige.
Look on Instagram.
We're talking muted neutrals,minimalistic product shots, even
similar poses and captions.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
So beige handbags, beige coffee cups, beige
sweaters.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
Beige everything.
Gifford argued it went beyondcoincidence.
She claims straight dressrights in the overall look and
feel of her feed.
That's unusual because tradedress usually applies to product
packaging or store design, notsomeone's curated Instagram grid
.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
Let me guess she also alleged copyright infringement.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
She did.
The complaint said Shield'sposts were strikingly similar
and that her photos andaesthetic choices were original
works protected by copyright.
This was, according to themagistrate, possibly the first
lawsuit of its kind betweeninfluencers over social media
style.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
Did she win the right to own Beige?
Speaker 3 (09:57):
Not exactly.
The case never went to a fulltrial.
They reportedly reached aconfidential settlement, but
legal commentators wereskeptical from the start.
The general view was you canprotect specific photos or
designs, but you can't copyrighta vibe.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
Which is good news, because, if you could, half of
Pinterest would be in courtright now.
Speaker 3 (10:18):
Right, but it's still a landmark in the sense that
influencers are now trying touse IP law not just to protect
their names but their aesthetics.
Even if the law doesn't fullystretch that far yet, it shows
where the next creative disputesmight pop up.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
And the takeaway.
Own your photos, sure, butdon't expect to trademark the
entire color palette of a coffeeshop.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
All right.
Last, stop on the real humanside the right of publicity or,
depending on where you are,image rights, portrait rights or
personality rights rights.
Basically, your legal power tosay no when someone tries to
profit off your name face orlikeness without permission.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
In other words, if someone slaps your face on a
billboard for cheese graters andyou've never even used a cheese
grater you might have a caseand influencers need to
understand this, because theirbrand is literally their
identity.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
because their brand is literally their identity.
Let's start with Kim Kardashianv Old Navy.
Back in 2012, old Navy ran a TVad with a model who looked a
lot like Kim Dark hair,glamorous outfit, even similar
mannerisms.
Kim sued, claiming it createdthe false impression.
She endorsed the brand.
That's a classic right ofpublicity claim under US state
(11:42):
law.
They settled, but it reinforcedthe point.
Lookalikes in ads can land youin court.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
So basically, if you're going to hire a
doppelganger, make sure it's fora costume party, not a campaign
.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
Exactly Now in the UK .
There's no standalone imageright, but celebrities can use
Pass Enough to fightunauthorized merch.
Rihanna v Topshop is the bigexample.
Topshop sold T-shirts withRihanna's image.
They licensed the photo from aphotographer but not from
Rihanna herself.
She sued, arguing customerswould think she approved the
(12:15):
shirts and she won.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
So no image right in the UK.
But if you can prove the publicwill think you endorsed it.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
You've still got a weapon Exactly.
And then there's China's civilcode, which came into effect in
2021.
It explicitly gives people theright to control their likeness
and voice.
That means in China, using aninfluencer's photo or even a
voice recording for commercialpurposes without consent is flat
out illegal, with very limitedexceptions like news reporting
(12:46):
or public interest art.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
So in China you can't just pull a random influencer's
video clip for your ad and hopeno one notices.
Speaker 3 (12:54):
Not unless you enjoy lawsuits.
These cases and the laws behindthem show that protecting your
image isn't just for A-listcelebrities anymore.
For influencers, your likenessis your livelihood, and knowing
how it's protected where youoperate is crucial.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
And if you go global, you better know which countries
will back you up and which oneswill just let someone else
profit off your smile.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
All right time to leave the realm of ring lights
and reality TV and step into theuncanny valley.
Virtual influencers and AIavatars.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Ah yes, the ones who never sleep, never age and never
get caught subtweeting their ex.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Exactly these digital personalities are entirely made
of intellectual property theirface, their voice, their
wardrobe, even the software codethat makes them blink.
That's why the biggest questionis who owns them?
Take Lil Miquella, for example.
(13:58):
She's a CGI girl with millionsof followers, brand deals with
Prada and Calvin Klein and a popmusic career, but she's not a
person.
She's the creation of a companycalled Brew, which owns her
image, voice and storylines, theway Disney owns Mickey.
Speaker 1 (14:17):
Mouse.
So in legal terms she's a brandmascot who can sing and throw
shade, exactly.
And then you've got Nunuri, astylized virtual fashion
influencer who's done campaignswith Dior, versace and
Balenciaga.
She was created by a graphicdesigner in Germany and licensed
to brands, just like youlicense a cartoon character for
(14:38):
an ad.
But here's where it gets tricky.
These characters can beimitated or outright stolen,
just like human influencers.
And then there's the darkerside deep fakes, like the case
of Michelle Jancy, right.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Right.
Michelle Jancy is a lifestylevlogger who discovered her
likeness had been hijacked in afake ad for an erectile drug,
complete with a deep, fakedvideo of her speaking in her own
bedroom.
It looked real, but she hadnothing to do with it.
Tom Hanks had a similar problemwhen a deepfake version of him
(15:12):
popped up in an unauthorizeddental plan ad.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
It's the influencer nightmare.
You wake up and your face isselling something you've never
heard of.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
Exactly, and this is where law is scrambling to keep
up In the US.
Some states have passed lawsagainst this.
Tennessee's AIL-VIS Act in 2024was the first to explicitly
protect people's voices andlikenesses from AI mimicry
without consent for both theliving and the dead.
California and New York areconsidering similar protections,
(15:46):
especially for actors, modelsand public figures.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law.
Playing talk about intellectualproperty.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
And in China they've gone even further with their
deep synthesis rules.
You can't use someone's imageor voice in AI generated content
without their consent, andanything AI altered has to be
clearly labeled.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Right.
It's not just about stoppingfakes, it's about transparency,
and that applies to real andvirtual influencers alike.
Applies to real and virtualinfluencers alike.
Even if your avatar is entirelyfictional, ad regulators expect
(16:30):
you to disclose when content issponsored.
The FTC in the US has made itclear that ad rule doesn't
vanish just because theinfluencer is pixels.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
So, basically, whether you're carbon-based or
code-based, the rules are thesame Don't use someone's
likeness without permission,don't mislead your audience and,
yes, put that hashtag in there.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
Exactly.
Virtual influencers might avoidhuman scandals, but they open
up new legal battles overownership, imitation and
disclosure, and those battlesare only getting started, all
right.
So whether your influencer ishuman or pixel, perfect, once
(17:07):
the contracts are signed, youthink the hard part's over.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
Oh, my sweet summer child.
Speaker 3 (17:13):
Exactly Because influencer brand partnerships
can go from dream collab tolegal nightmare faster than you
can say unpaid invoice.
Let's start with the classicbreach of deliverables.
Back in 2018, fashioninfluencer Lucas Zavatt signed a
$60,000 or cents deal topromote Snap Inc's spectacles
(17:37):
during Fashion Week.
The deal required fourInstagram posts and an
appearance at certain eventswearing the glasses.
Savat got $45,000, zero centsup front posted once, skipped
the rest and went about his life.
The PR firm sued for breach ofcontract, demanding the money
(17:57):
back plus damages.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Translation if you're getting paid to post, you can't
just not post, right?
These days, brands protectthemselves by holding part of
the payment until the campaign'scomplete.
No posts, no final check.
Then there's exclusivitybreaches.
Contracts often say you can'tpromote a competitor for a set
time before and after a campaign.
Say you can't promote acompetitor for a set time before
(18:23):
and after a campaign.
If you're the face of onesports drink, you can't pop up
sipping another on TikTok thenext week.
Do it anyway and the brand canterminate the deal, claw back
payments or, if they're feelingspicy, sue, and those clauses
can be sneakily broad.
No competitor can sometimesmean no other product in the
same general category, whichcould be half your fridge.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
Exactly.
Then there's the morals clause,the escape hatch for brands
when their influencer goes offscreen.
In real life, it coversanything that could tarnish the
brand's reputation.
That's how brands droppedYouTuber Logan Paul after his
infamous 2018 video, or endedlucrative partnership with Kanye
(19:03):
West when controversy becametoo costly, which is why some
luxury brands secretly lovevirtual influencers.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
No off the cuff tweets.
No paparazzi scandals justprogrammable perfection.
Scandals just programmableperfection.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
And lately we're seeing a new legal front
consumer class actions.
In early 2025, brands likeCelsius, revolve and Alo Yoga
and the influencers they hiredwere hit with lawsuits, alleging
they failed to disclose thatcertain posts were sponsored.
Plaintiffs claim that missingad tags tricked consumers into
(19:44):
thinking the endorsements weregenuine, leading them to buy
products at premium prices.
Speaker 1 (19:51):
So it's not just the FTC sending warning letters
anymore, it's your own followersfiling lawsuits.
Speaker 3 (19:57):
Exactly, and whether you're a human influencer or a
CGI avatar, the disclosure rulesare the same.
If you're paid to promote, youhave to tell people clearly and
conspicuously.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
Bottom line deliver the post, respect exclusivity.
Stay out of scandal and slapthat ad where everyone can see
it.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
Now, if there's one industry that has really leaned
into influences, human andvirtual, it's luxury fashion.
And when they stepped into themetaverse, it's not just about
selling clothes, it's aboutcrafting a whole digital fantasy
and controlling it down to thelast pixel, because that's what
couture level micromanagementlooks like.
(20:39):
Exactly.
Take Balma's virtual model armyback in 2018.
Shudu, Markai and Zee,hyper-realistic digital models
who starred in the brand'scampaigns.
Shudu, for example, looks solifelike that many people
thought she was a real model.
She wasn't.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
She was entirely CGI, owned and operated by a
creative agency, which meansBalma didn't have to deal with
last minute cancellations, hairemergencies or diva demands,
Just render, retouch and release.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
Then there is Prada, who went even more interactive.
They handed over theirInstagram account to Lil Miquela
during Milan Fashion Week in2018.
She posted from shows, wore thecollection and interacted with
fans as if she were really there.
And the genius is no travelbudget, no jet lag and she'll
(21:37):
never get caught wearing a rivalbrand on her day off.
Dayur has worked repeatedlywith Norvi, another virtual
influencer, who's been styled ineverything from haute couture
gowns to streetwear collabs andLouis Vuitton, even put Final
Fantasy video game characterlining in a campaign, complete
with a handbag that matched herpixel-perfect battle gear.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
Talk about crossovers .
That's like if a Marvelsuperhero showed up in a Gucci
ad.
Speaker 3 (22:02):
IB Dynamics here are fascinating.
When a luxury brandcollaborates with a virtual
influencer, they aren't justpaying for a photo shoot, they
are licensing a character.
That means negotiating usagerights, creative control and
sometimes exclusivity.
For example, a brand mightinsist that the avatar can
(22:23):
appear wearing a competitor'sdesigns for a set period, just
like with human models.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
And let's not forget if the brand creates original
digital assets, say a virtualdress designed specifically for
the avatar, the contract has todecide who owns that.
Does it stay with the brand ordoes the avatar's creator get to
reuse it?
Speaker 3 (22:43):
Exactly.
These deals are part talentcontract, part licensing
agreement and part contentproduction deal.
And for brands, virtualinfluencers have one big
advantage over humans totalnarrative control.
They want age change stylewithout approval or get caught
in a public scandal, unlesstheir creators script it that
(23:06):
way.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
Though in a way the metaverse is the ultimate PR
dream, perfectly unbannedforever.
Speaker 3 (23:12):
But, as you can imagine, that much control also
raises IP stakes.
If a collaboration goes bad,you can't just replace the face.
You might have to untangle whoactually owns the character's
image, voice and storylinebefore you can move on.
We've talked about the cases,the brands, the avatars.
(23:34):
Now let's zoom out to the bigpicture.
How are laws and policiesaround the world shaping the
future of influence, both humanand virtual?
Speaker 1 (23:47):
And the good news is there's a lot happening.
Different countries arebuilding their own toolkits to
help protect names, faces anddigital doubles names, faces and
digital doubles.
Speaker 3 (24:03):
In the United States, the framework is a mix of
state-level rights and federalguidance.
Over 30 states recognize aright of publicity, meaning
individuals can control howtheir name, image and likeness
are used commercially.
Some even extend this to voiceand posthumous rights, giving
long-term protection to creativelegacies.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
And new developments are coming fast.
Tennessee's Elvis Act in 2024was the first US law to clearly
address AI cloning of voices andlikenesses.
California, new York and othersare exploring similar measures.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission keeps
influencer marketing clear andtransparent through its
endorsement guides.
They've made it simple Ifyou're being paid, label it so
audiences can make informedchoices.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
That's a principle that works across borders.
Speaker 3 (24:58):
Clarity builds trust In the European Union.
Many member states alreadyprotect personal likeness
through privacy or personalityrights.
France, germany, spain andothers have strong consent
requirements before someone'simage can be used commercially
(25:21):
used commercially and theupcoming AI Act adds another
layer requiring disclosure forAI-generated or altered content
that could be mistaken for real.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
That's especially relevant for virtual influencers
, since it supports transparencywithout limiting creativity.
Speaker 3 (25:32):
China has integrated image and voice rights into its
civil code since 2021, makingconsent a clear part of the
process.
The deep synthesis provisionsbuild on that by ensuring that,
if AI is used to create or altera likeness, audiences are
informed and the person'sapproval is obtained.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
As a practical approach.
It gives room for innovation,but makes sure creators and the
public know what's authentic andwhat's synthetic.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
Japan recognizes personality rights to court
decisions, which allows forflexible interpretation as
technology evolves.
These rights cover the use ofsomeone's image in commercial
contexts and cultural norms.
Also emphasize respect for orcreate identity.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
India has seen courts protect celebrity likenesses
and names from unauthorized use,and the Advertising Standards
Council of India's influencerguidelines encourage clear,
upfront disclosure inadvertising.
Speaker 3 (26:33):
Across Latin America.
Countries like Brazil, mexicoand Argentina treat image rights
as part of constitutional orcivil code protections.
Courts there have awardeddamages for unauthorized use,
supporting both established andemerging public figures.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
And in South Africa, image and personality rights are
recognized under both commonlaw and the constitution, with
data protection rules that canalso apply to biometric
information like facial imagesor voice prints.
Speaker 3 (27:05):
Australia and New Zealand approach the issue
through consumer protection andpassing off laws.
This ensures that if someone'simage or persona is used in a
way that could mislead consumers, there's a clear path to
address it.
Speaker 1 (27:21):
So, while the legal paths may vary, the shared goal
is the same supporting creators,protecting identities and
building trust betweeninfluencers, brands and
audiences.
Speaker 3 (27:33):
whether the influencer is human, animated or
entirely AI generated, humananimated or entirely AI
generated, and that shared goalis a solid foundation for future
policies that can keep pacewith the creative and commercial
power of influence.
All right time to land thisplane with our five takeaways.
Speaker 1 (27:55):
Or five hashtags you might want to tattoo on your
legal strategy.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
One trademark, early trademark, smart.
If your name, slogan or avataris part of your brand, register
it before someone else does.
That goes for real names, stagenames and even the names of
your virtual creations.
Cold dips before the copycatsdo.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
It's faster and cheaper than buying it back
later.
Two contracts aren't justpaperwork, they're your playbook
.
Spell out deliverables,deadlines, exclusivity and what
happens if something goes wrong,whether you're the influencer
or the brand.
Clarity up front savescourtroom drama later.
Think of it as your prenup forclout Three disclosure is your
(28:41):
friend.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
A clear ad or pay partnership tag isn't just
compliance, it's trust buildingwith your audience.
Hidden disclosures can cost youfollowers money and, yes, legal
fees.
Honesty is influencer currency.
Spend it wisely.
Speaker 1 (29:00):
Four protect your likeness, carbon or code your
face, your voice, your vibe.
If it's you or a creation ofyou, guard it.
That means consent for use,Watching for fakes and
understanding your rights in themarkets you operate.
Even pixels need personalboundaries.
Five virtual doesn't meanrisk-free Avatars, deepfakes and
(29:25):
AI influencers have the same IPand brand safety issues as
humans, sometimes more.
Treat them like any otherhigh-value asset Register,
license, monitor and protect,because in the metaverse, the
brand you save might be your own.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
So, whether you're chasing clout or creating clones
, the law is not here to rain onyour parade.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
It's here to make sure you own the parade and that
the parade isn't sellingknockoff handbags with your name
on them.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the
podcast of intangible lawplaying.
Talk about intellectualproperty.
Did you like what we talkedtoday?
Please share with your network.
Do you want to learn more aboutintellectual property?
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(30:15):
Visit our websitewwwintangibliacom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.