California's two new laws on AI digital replicas of performers
AB 2602 and AB 1836 now require consent before creating realistic digital recreations of performers' voices and likenesses.
California's entertainment industry now operates under two laws that define when realistic AI recreations of performers' voices and likenesses require consent. AB 2602, effective January 1, 2025, protects living performers in contract negotiations. AB 1836, effective January 1, 2026, protects the estates of deceased personalities. Together, they establish California's first comprehensive framework for controlling digital replicas in professional entertainment work.
Both laws define a digital replica the same way: "a computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation that is readily identifiable as the voice or visual likeness of an individual." This covers cases where the person either did not actually perform or where the fundamental character of their performance was materially altered. The definition excludes authorized remixing, mastering, or digital remastering of existing copyrighted recordings.
What AB 2602 requires for living performers
AB 2602 applies to contracts for personal or professional services in entertainment. Its core rule: a contract clause allowing a digital replica to replace work a performer would otherwise do in person is unenforceable only if the performer received no reasonably specific list of proposed uses and was not represented by a lawyer or union during negotiations. Meeting either condition on its own is enough to keep the clause enforceable.
First, the performer must receive a "reasonably specific description of the intended uses of the digital replica." Vague language about potential future uses does not satisfy this requirement. The specific proposed uses must be clearly laid out in writing.
Second, the performer must have been represented during contract negotiations by either a lawyer or a labor union. If represented by legal counsel, the counsel must have negotiated the digital replica terms on the performer's behalf, and all commercial terms must be "stated clearly and conspicuously" in a written contract the performer signed or initialed. If represented by a labor union, the union must represent workers doing the type of work the digital replica would perform, and the collective bargaining agreement must expressly address digital replica uses.
This protection does not prevent studios from creating digital replicas or using AI in production. It prevents them from writing performers out of their contracts by substituting a digital copy without explicit negotiation and representation. A contract that violates these terms is simply unenforceable for the digital replica provision; the rest of the contract typically remains valid.
What AB 1836 requires for deceased personalities
AB 1836 takes effect January 1, 2026 and addresses a different problem: the estates of deceased performers cannot negotiate anything, yet studios could theoretically recreate their voices and likenesses in new productions. The law gives estates legal control over these digital replicas for 70 years after death.
Anyone who produces, distributes, or makes available a digital replica of a deceased personality's voice or likeness in an audiovisual work or sound recording must first obtain "prior consent" from the deceased person's estate. If there is no testamentary transfer of these rights, the underlying publicity-rights statute specifies who may give consent instead: a surviving spouse, then children and grandchildren, in shares set by statute.
A violation creates a legal cause of action. The liable party owes "the greater of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or the actual damages suffered by a person controlling the rights to the deceased personality's likeness." AB 1836 also preserved an older provision creating separate minimum statutory damages of $750 for other unauthorized uses of a deceased person's likeness, so damages in some cases could involve multiple theories.
Exemptions and fair use
AB 1836 exempts certain uses from its consent requirement. Digital replicas of deceased personalities may be made and distributed without estate consent for news, public affairs, or sports broadcasts; uses for comment, criticism, scholarship, satire, or parody; documentary, historical, or biographical representations; and fleeting or incidental appearances.
These carve-outs mirror California's broader right-of-publicity law and protect journalism, criticism, and creative expression. However, a use labeled as historical or biographical must not be designed to create "a false impression that the work is an authentic recording."
“A contract clause allowing a digital replica to replace work a performer would otherwise do in person is unenforceable unless the performer received a detailed list of uses or was represented by a lawyer or union.”
Who can sue and what happens next
Under AB 1836, someone harmed by an unauthorized digital replica—typically the estate controlling the deceased person's rights—has a cause of action for the statutory or actual damages described above. No litigation has yet clarified what "consent" means in practice: whether it must be written, how far estates can delegate this right, or what happens if a deceased person's wishes about their likeness are unclear.
Under AB 2602, a performer who signed an unenforceable contract can typically ask a court to invalidate the digital replica clause. The law does not specify damages for violation; the remedy is that the clause simply fails.
What remains unclear
AB 2602 has been in effect for about 21 months. Major studios have likely already revised their standard contracts for performers, writers, and other talent. Independent producers and smaller production companies may be catching up. The law applies only to performances fixed on or after January 1, 2025, regardless of when the underlying contract was signed.
AB 1836 took effect in January 2026, about nine months ago. Estates have not yet had to enforce the law against unauthorized uses, so no case law exists on key questions: whether estates can license their deceased relatives' digital replicas to new productions, whether a studio must get the agreement of multiple heirs, or whether a person's lifetime wishes about their likeness can override the estate's control.
The laws define the technology narrowly—a digital replica must be "highly realistic" and "readily identifiable" as the person. A rough, obviously artificial version might not trigger these protections. Both laws apply only to commercial or expressive works, not to casual or private use.
Related coverage: How Newsom's new AI executive order could reshape rules for Hollywood; What a talent agent may and may not do under California law.
