Missouri Right of Publicity for Artists

Every artist, musician, and performer builds something beyond their creative work — they build an identity. That identity has commercial value, and Missouri law protects it. Missouri recognizes a common law right of publicity that shields individuals from the unauthorized commercial use of their name, voice, photograph, or likeness. For performers and public figures in the St. Louis entertainment community and throughout Missouri, understanding this protection is increasingly important in an age of digital content, social media, and AI-generated imagery.

This article examines Missouri's right of publicity doctrine, what it protects, how violations are enforced, and the emerging challenges that technology poses to publicity rights. For additional background on how these rights function nationally, see our overview of the evolving landscape of right of publicity in the United States.

Missouri's Common Law Right of Publicity

Unlike some states that have enacted specific right of publicity statutes, Missouri's right of publicity is rooted in common law — developed through court decisions rather than legislative enactment. The foundational case is Doe v. TCI Cablevision, 110 S.W.3d 363 (Mo. 2003), in which the Missouri Supreme Court distinguished the right of publicity from the related tort of misappropriation of name and established the framework that Missouri courts continue to apply.

Under Doe v. TCI Cablevision, a plaintiff asserting a right of publicity claim must establish three elements: (1) that the defendant used the plaintiff's name, likeness, or other indicia of identity as a symbol of that person's identity; (2) that the defendant did so without consent; and (3) that the defendant intended to obtain a commercial advantage from the use. Missouri's analysis tracks the Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition, and the Missouri Supreme Court has adopted a "Predominant Use Test" to balance right of publicity claims against First Amendment protections — asking whether the defendant's use of the plaintiff's identity is predominantly commercial or predominantly expressive.

The common law nature of Missouri's right of publicity means that the scope of protection evolves through judicial interpretation, which provides flexibility but can also create uncertainty — particularly as new technologies raise questions that existing case law does not directly address.

What the Right of Publicity Protects

Name

The right of publicity protects an individual's actual name — first name, last name, and any combination thereof — from unauthorized commercial use. This includes stage names, pen names, and other names by which an individual is publicly known, when those names are used in a manner that identifies the individual.

Voice

Missouri's common law doctrine protects voice, which is particularly significant for musicians, voice actors, and broadcast personalities whose vocal identity has independent commercial value. Unauthorized use of a recognizable voice — including imitation — in commercial advertising or promotion can violate the right of publicity. Voice protection has taken on heightened importance in the AI era, as voice cloning technology can now replicate a performer's vocal identity with striking accuracy.

Signature

An individual's signature is a unique identifier that carries personal and commercial significance. The unauthorized use of a signature in endorsements, product packaging, or promotional materials violates the statute.

Photograph and Likeness

The protection of photograph and likeness encompasses any visual representation that identifies the individual, including photographs, video footage, illustrations, and digital recreations. This is the most commonly litigated aspect of right of publicity claims, particularly in the context of unauthorized use of celebrity images in advertising and merchandise.

The Commercial Use Requirement

Missouri's right of publicity doctrine applies specifically to commercial use — advertising, promotion, or solicitation. This limitation distinguishes actionable violations from protected speech. News reporting, commentary, criticism, parody, satire, and other forms of expression that use an individual's name or likeness for informational or expressive purposes — rather than commercial exploitation — are generally protected by the First Amendment and do not violate the right of publicity. For a deeper analysis of this tension, see our discussion of balancing First Amendment freedoms and the right of publicity.

The boundary between commercial use and protected expression is not always clear, and cases involving artistic works, merchandise featuring celebrity images, and social media content often require careful analysis of whether the use is primarily commercial or primarily expressive.

Common Violations

Unauthorized Endorsements

Using an individual's name, image, or likeness to imply endorsement of a product or service without consent is a straightforward violation of the right of publicity. This includes placing a performer's photograph on promotional materials, using an athlete's name in advertising copy, or creating the impression that a public figure has endorsed a business or product when no such endorsement exists.

Unauthorized Merchandise

The production and sale of merchandise bearing an individual's name, image, or likeness without consent — such as T-shirts, posters, mugs, and digital products — is a common source of right of publicity disputes, particularly in the music and sports industries. St. Louis musicians and performers frequently encounter unauthorized merchandise featuring their images at events and online marketplaces.

Social Media and Digital Exploitation

Social media platforms have created new opportunities for right of publicity violations. Businesses that use influencers' or performers' images without permission to promote products, or that create social media accounts impersonating public figures for commercial purposes, may be liable under the statute.

AI and Deepfake Technology: Emerging Challenges

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence and deepfake technology has created unprecedented challenges for right of publicity protection. AI tools can now generate realistic images, video, and audio of real individuals — including deceased individuals — without their consent or participation. These synthetic reproductions can be used in advertising, entertainment, and social media in ways that existing common law doctrine was not designed to address.

Missouri's common law right of publicity protects an individual's "likeness," but the question of whether AI-generated synthetic content constitutes a "likeness" within the meaning of the common law is largely untested in Missouri courts. The common law framework provides some flexibility — courts could reasonably interpret "likeness" to encompass AI-generated replicas that are identifiable as a specific individual — but until Missouri courts squarely address the issue, the scope of protection against deepfake exploitation remains uncertain.

Federal Legislative Responses

At the federal level, two significant pieces of legislation have emerged. The TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed into law by President Trump on May 19, 2025, criminalizes the publication of nonconsensual intimate imagery — including AI-generated deepfakes — and requires covered online platforms to implement notice-and-removal processes by May 2026. While the TAKE IT DOWN Act focuses specifically on intimate imagery rather than commercial exploitation, it represents the first federal law directly addressing AI-generated deepfakes.

The NO FAKES Act (Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act), reintroduced with bipartisan support in April 2025, would go further by establishing a federal private right of action for unauthorized digital replicas of an individual's voice or visual likeness. If enacted, the NO FAKES Act would create a uniform national standard governing when and how a person's likeness can be replicated using AI — supplementing the patchwork of state laws that currently governs right of publicity claims. As of this writing, the NO FAKES Act remains pending before Congress.

State-Level AI Protections

As of early 2026, at least 46 states have enacted some form of legislation targeting AI-generated synthetic media. Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act), enacted in 2024, specifically prohibits using AI to replicate a person's voice without permission — a protection particularly relevant to musicians and voice actors. Several other states have expanded their right of publicity statutes to explicitly cover AI-generated digital replicas of both living and deceased individuals. Missouri, however, has not yet enacted AI-specific right of publicity legislation, meaning that performers in the state must rely on the existing common law framework or seek protection under federal law as it develops. For a broader look at how intellectual property law intersects with emerging technology, see our intellectual property practice area.

Proactive Protection Strategies

For performers and public figures, proactive protection strategies are increasingly important. These include contractual provisions in licensing agreements that explicitly address AI-generated content and digital replicas, monitoring services that detect unauthorized synthetic reproductions of voice and likeness, prompt legal action when violations are discovered, and engagement with industry advocacy efforts supporting legislative reform at both the state and federal levels.

Remedies and Enforcement

An individual whose right of publicity is violated may file a civil lawsuit seeking actual damages (the fair market value of the unauthorized use), profits derived by the defendant from the unauthorized use, injunctive relief to prevent continued unauthorized use, and attorney fees in appropriate cases. The measure of damages depends on the circumstances. A well-known performer whose image was used to imply endorsement of a product may recover the fair market value of the endorsement — which can be substantial. An emerging artist whose image was used on unauthorized merchandise may recover the defendant's profits from those sales.

It is also worth noting that the Eighth Circuit, in Ray v. ESPN, Inc., 783 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 2015), held that Missouri right of publicity claims can be preempted by federal copyright law when the claim arises from the use of an authorized copyrighted work. This means that where a performer's likeness appears in copyrighted footage that was created with authorization, a separate right of publicity claim based on that same footage may be barred. An experienced entertainment attorney can help evaluate whether copyright preemption applies to a particular situation. For more on this intersection, see our discussion of rights of publicity.

Right of Publicity for Performers and Musicians

Musicians and performers in St. Louis and throughout Missouri face particular right of publicity challenges. Live performance creates a wealth of photographs and video recordings that may be used without authorization. Social media amplifies the reach of unauthorized content. Merchandising disputes are common at venues and festivals.

Performers should take proactive steps to protect their publicity rights, including maintaining a photographic record of their professional image to support future claims, including right of publicity provisions in performance contracts and venue agreements, monitoring online marketplaces and social media for unauthorized use, registering trademarks for stage names and logos where appropriate, and consulting with an entertainment attorney about comprehensive publicity rights protection strategies.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Missouri's right of publicity survive death?

Because Missouri's right of publicity is common law rather than statutory, the question of post-mortem rights is not directly addressed by legislation. Unlike states such as Tennessee and California that have enacted specific post-mortem publicity rights statutes, Missouri law is less clear on whether the right of publicity survives the individual's death and can be enforced by heirs or estate representatives. The absence of explicit statutory protection for post-mortem publicity rights is a notable gap in Missouri law that may require either judicial clarification or legislative action — particularly as AI technology makes it easier than ever to create digital replicas of deceased performers.

Can I use a celebrity's image in my own artwork?

This depends on whether the use is primarily commercial or primarily expressive. Artwork that uses a celebrity's likeness for creative, transformative, or commentary purposes may be protected by the First Amendment. Artwork that primarily serves to sell merchandise by trading on the celebrity's identity may violate the right of publicity. Missouri courts analyze these cases on a fact-specific basis, considering the nature and purpose of the use.

What should I do if someone is using my image without permission in Missouri?

Document the unauthorized use immediately — screenshots, URLs, photographs of physical merchandise. Identify the responsible party. Then consult with an entertainment attorney who can evaluate your options, which may include sending a cease and desist letter, filing a DMCA takedown notice if the use is online, and pursuing civil damages under Missouri's common law right of publicity. If the unauthorized use involves AI-generated intimate imagery, the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act may also provide a path to removal and criminal penalties.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different. Contact OTT Law at (314) 710-2740 for a free consultation specific to your situation.