The Release Said "All Media Now Known or Hereafter Devised." California Voided It.
Two California statutes changed what a likeness release can actually buy. Neither bans synthetic performers. Both attack the one thing every media contract relies on — the broad, forward-looking, unspecific grant.
The lever is contract validity, not prohibition
Most AI legislation works by forbidding a use. These two do something more unusual and, for anyone who signs talent agreements, more consequential: they reach into a signed contract and withdraw enforceability from a specific clause while leaving the rest of the deal standing.
That asymmetry is the part to internalize. You do not get a notice, a fine, or a cease-and-desist that tells you the grant failed. You find out when you have already generated the replica, cut the campaign, and the performer's representative writes to say the provision you relied on never bound their client. The production contract is still valid. The rights you thought you bought are not there.
A reasonably specific description of the intended uses
CONDITION ONEThe contract has to say what the replica will be used for with enough particularity that the performer knew what they were agreeing to. 'Any and all purposes, in any medium, in perpetuity' is the paradigm of a description that fails.
Specific does not mean exhaustive. Name the project, the character or role, the categories of media, the territory, and the term. A clause that a stranger could read and predict the output from is doing the work.
Representation by counsel or a covering union
CONDITION TWOThe performer was represented by legal counsel in negotiating the agreement, or is covered by a collective bargaining agreement that addresses digital replica use. Either satisfies the representation limb.
Note who this protects and who it does not. A represented A-lister was never the target. The unrepresented day-player, the background performer, the freelance voice talent who signed the standard PDF — those are the agreements the statute reworks.
Both must fail before the clause falls
CONJUNCTIVEUnenforceability requires the vague description and the absence of representation together. A specific clause signed without counsel can still hold; a broad clause negotiated by the performer's lawyer is not automatically voided by this statute.
Which gives you two independent ways to build an enforceable grant — and a strong practical argument for doing both rather than picking one.
The deceased-performer rule closes the other door
AB 1836 addresses the case where there is nobody left to negotiate with. California has long recognized a post-mortem right of publicity in a "deceased personality," held by the estate or its successors in interest. The amendment extends that right to digital replicas in expressive audiovisual works and sound recordings, so producing a synthetic performance of a late actor, musician, or public figure generally requires the rightsholder's consent.
The remedies are what make this operationally serious rather than theoretical. The underlying framework provides statutory damages with a floor plus any profits attributable to the unauthorized use, and — critically — attorney's fees to the prevailing party. Fee shifting converts a use that generated modest revenue into a claim worth bringing.
There are carve-outs in the publicity framework for genuinely expressive and news-like uses — commentary, criticism, satire, documentary treatment, coverage of matters of public interest. Those exemptions are real, they are fact-specific, and they are not a place to plant a marketing campaign. An ad is not a documentary because it has a voice over.
What to change in your release template
Split the replica grant out of the general release
Stop letting digital replica rights ride inside the boilerplate publicity paragraph. A separate, separately initialed section is both better evidence of informed consent and easier to draft with the specificity the statute wants.
Enumerate uses, media, territory, and term
Name the production or campaign, describe the kind of performance the replica will render, list the media channels, state the territory, and put an end date on it. Perpetual and worldwide is not automatically fatal, but paired with vague use language it is the worst combination available.
Record the representation status on the face of the document
A short recital stating whether the performer was represented by counsel or covered by a CBA, with the firm or union named. When the enforceability question is litigated, this is the fact in dispute — do not leave it to memory.
Add an affirmative no-replica default
State that absent the specific grant, no digital replica may be created from any material captured under the agreement. This protects you from the argument that raw footage delivery implied a training license.
Require a chain-of-title rep from every asset vendor
If a stock library, an avatar platform, or a voice-model provider supplies the likeness, get a representation that consents were obtained in a form that satisfies these rules — plus indemnity that survives termination.
Build a consent register keyed to the asset
The replica will outlive the campaign and get reused by someone who never saw the contract. Store the permitted-use scope alongside the asset itself so the reuse decision can be made without a document hunt.
This reaches further than film and television
The statutes are framed around performers and performances, which leads in-house teams outside entertainment to assume they are spectators. They frequently are not. Consider how many ordinary business uses are, structurally, a synthetic performance by a real person:
- AI-cloned voices in support and IVR — a recording session with a voice actor, later used to synthesize lines that actor never spoke.
- Avatar spokespeople in product and sales video — an on-camera shoot converted into a reusable presenter who reads new scripts each quarter.
- Localized training content — an employee or executive's likeness lip-synced into twelve languages they do not speak.
- Retail and hospitality signage — a model's captured likeness regenerated into seasonal creative long after the shoot's term ran out.
In each case the release was drafted for the original shoot, by someone who was not thinking about a generative pipeline. That gap — not any deliberate misuse — is where most of the exposure actually sits.
Check what your public pages are publishing about AI content
Disclosure obligations around synthetic media land on the same public pages your customers use — and those pages have to be reachable and readable to do any legal work at all. RatedWithAI scans your site free and shows you what a real visitor encounters.
Scan Your Site for Free →Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly is a 'digital replica' under these laws?
Broadly, a computer-generated, highly realistic representation of a real person's voice or visual likeness — one that a reasonable observer would take for the actual individual — created in place of a performance the person did not actually give. The concept is defined to target synthetic performances, not ordinary editing, de-aging touch-ups, or a photograph of the person that is simply a photograph of the person.
Does AB 2602 ban digital replicas?
No. It is a contract-validity rule, not a prohibition. A performer can still license a replica. The statute makes the clause unenforceable when two conditions coincide: the contract does not contain a reasonably specific description of the intended uses, and the performer was not represented either by legal counsel or by a labor union whose collective bargaining agreement covers replica use. Specificity plus representation is the path to an enforceable grant.
We have a broad 'all media now known or hereafter devised' release. Are we covered?
That is the exact language the statute was aimed at. A catch-all future-media grant is the opposite of a reasonably specific description of intended uses. If the performer signed without counsel or a union rep, expect that clause to be treated as unenforceable as to replica uses — and the rest of the agreement generally survives, which means you may hold a valid production contract with a hole where the replica rights were.
Does AB 1836 apply to a performer who died decades ago?
It operates through California's existing post-mortem right of publicity, which protects deceased personalities for a long term after death and is held by the estate or its successors. AB 1836 extends that framework to digital replicas in expressive audiovisual works and sound recordings, so a producer generally needs the rightsholder's consent. How far back the protection runs is a question of the underlying publicity statute, not of the AI amendment.
Our company is not in California. Does any of this reach us?
California publicity and contract law can reach out-of-state production and distribution in a range of circumstances — where the talent is a California resident, where the contract selects California law, or where the exploitation occurs in the state. Given the concentration of talent agreements under California law, treating these rules as the practical floor for any US-facing campaign is a reasonable operating assumption rather than a cautious one.
What penalty attaches to using a replica of a deceased personality without consent?
The post-mortem publicity framework AB 1836 works through carries statutory damages with a floor — commonly cited as the greater of a fixed statutory amount or the actual damages suffered, plus any profits attributable to the use — along with attorney's fees for the prevailing party. The fee-shifting is what makes small unauthorized uses worth suing over.
This article is general information, not legal advice. Statutory text, damages figures, and the scope of the expressive-works exemptions should be confirmed against the current California codes with entertainment or IP counsel before you rely on them in a contract.