Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: the UK's pivot towards a new digital replica right

While this series has so far discussed what the Government's Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence elected to defer, “digital replica” or “personality” rights stand out for the opposite reason. On digital replicas, AI-generated synthetic recreations of a person's voice, face, or likeness, the Government has put the possibility of a new statutory right explicitly on the table. A dedicated consultation is promised for summer 2026 which will determine how these rights will be protected from synthetic recreation.  

For well known individuals, this matters because such rights could protect their likeness from imitation and false attribution, and unlock new opportunities for revenue and the exploration of novel production methods.  

The current law

Existing law does not protect identity. There is no protection against a synthetic replica generated by a model trained on a performer's back catalogue. Whilst individuals can, subject to meeting the requirements, seek to trade mark their name, the current law does not give most individuals meaningful control over their image or voice and that is what the summer consultation is designed to address. 

The March 2026 Report does not commit to a specific model. The options range from a narrow "digital replica right" targeting AI-generated synthetic outputs to a broader "personality right" covering identity more generally.

The UK is not alone in identifying this problem. In the United States, the April 2025 “NO FAKES Act” would establish a federal right over voice and visual likeness. In Germany, personality rights have been a feature of civil law for decades.

As our article on the divergence between UK and EU copyright noted, the UK has lagged behind its neighbours on several dimensions of AI and identity protection. A new digital replica right may begin to close that gap. 

What to do in the meantime 

As discussed elsewhere in this series, in the absence of statutory protections, technical and contractual arrangements are the most effective measures for individuals to protect their identity from reproduction and for businesses to ensure compliance. 

Any agreement involving recorded voice or likeness should now include express restrictions on AI training use and synthetic replication covering not just the immediate counterparty but address possible onward licensing. Existing catalogue agreements are worth reviewing for provisions that may inadvertently permit broad use of recorded material. 

Clients with growing commercial identities should be documenting them now as evidence of a distinctive voice or appearance and this audit trail is likely to be important both for interim claims and for establishing the scope of any future right. 

While the Government’s March 2026 Report failed to reach a definitive consensus, this is all the more reason to engage and build rights that achieve the Government’s stated aim to provide protections and secure value for the creative industries.