Can Fame Be Stolen? The Emerging Law of Identity Theft in Entertainment
By Onabanjo Iretiogo
“The greatest asset a celebrity owns is often not a song, a film, or a trademark. It is recognition. But what happens when recognition itself becomes replicable?”
Introduction
Entertainment law has traditionally focused on protecting what artists create – their songs, films, scripts, performances, trademarks, and commercial agreements. Yet, in today’s digital economy, an entertainer’s most valuable asset is often not a copyrighted work but their identity.
A distinctive voice, recognisable face, signature dance move, unique fashion style, or carefully cultivated public persona can possess enormous commercial value. These attributes distinguish entertainers in an increasingly competitive marketplace and often drive endorsement deals, brand partnerships, streaming revenue, film roles, and audience loyalty.
However, rapid advances in artificial intelligence, deepfake technology, voice cloning, digital avatars, and synthetic media have fundamentally changed the nature of this asset. Technology can now replicate a person’s appearance, voice, expressions, and mannerisms with remarkable precision, making it increasingly difficult for audiences to distinguish authentic performances from digitally generated imitations.
This development presents one of the most significant legal questions confronting the modern entertainment industry: Can fame itself be stolen?
Unlike conventional identity theft, which involves the unlawful use of financial information or personal data, identity theft in the entertainment industry targets something far more valuable, the commercial value of reputation, recognition, and public trust painstakingly built over many years.
Fame as a Commercial Asset
Fame is more than popularity; it is an intangible commercial asset capable of generating substantial economic value.
Consumers rarely invest solely in creative works. They invest in the personalities behind them. A musician’s voice, an actor’s image, a comedian’s style, or an influencer’s online presence often becomes a marketable brand in its own right. In many cases, public recognition is the principal driver of commercial success.
Brand endorsements, licensing arrangements, advertising campaigns, merchandising, live performances, and digital content frequently derive their value from the public’s emotional connection with the individual rather than from any single creative work.
When technology convincingly reproduces an entertainer’s voice, likeness, performance style, or digital persona without authorisation, it enables third parties to benefit from years of another person’s investment in talent, reputation, and goodwill. The commercial value painstakingly developed by one individual may therefore be exploited by another with little or no creative contribution.
The consequence extends beyond financial loss. Unauthorised digital impersonation may dilute an entertainer’s brand, confuse consumers, damage professional relationships, and undermine public confidence in authentic creative works.
The Limits of Existing Law
Current legal frameworks provide only fragmented protection against this emerging challenge.
Copyright law protects original literary, musical, artistic, audiovisual, and other creative works. Trademark law safeguards brands and commercial identifiers. Contract law regulates commercial relationships, while the common law tort of passing off protects business goodwill against deceptive misrepresentation.
Each of these legal regimes serves an important purpose. Yet none was specifically designed to protect an individual’s overall commercial identity from sophisticated digital replication.
In Nigeria, the Copyright Act 2022 provides comprehensive protection for creative expression but does not expressly recognise a celebrity’s commercial identity or personality as a standalone proprietary right. Consequently, entertainers seeking legal protection often rely on a combination of copyright, trademark registration, passing off, privacy rights, contractual restrictions, and, where appropriate, constitutional protections.
While these remedies may offer partial relief, they remain reactive rather than comprehensive. They were developed long before artificial intelligence made it possible to generate highly realistic digital replicas capable of deceiving audiences on a global scale.
Rethinking Entertainment Law
The emergence of artificial intelligence requires a corresponding evolution in entertainment law.
As technological innovation continues to blur the distinction between authenticity and imitation, legislators and courts should consider recognising commercial identity as a distinct and protectable legal interest, particularly where its unauthorised exploitation causes financial loss, reputational damage, consumer confusion, or unjust commercial enrichment.
A modern regulatory framework should seek to balance innovation with the protection of legitimate commercial interests. Such a framework should:
- recognise commercial identity and personality rights as valuable legal assets deserving of protection;
- regulate AI-generated replicas, voice cloning, deepfakes, and other forms of digital impersonation;
- require informed consent before the commercial exploitation of an individual’s recognisable identity;
- provide effective civil remedies, including injunctions, damages, account of profits, and removal of infringing digital content; and
- establish clear obligations for technology developers, digital platforms, advertisers, and commercial users of synthetic media.
These reforms would not inhibit technological innovation. Rather, they would ensure that innovation develops within a legal framework that respects human creativity, protects commercial investment, and promotes ethical digital practices.
Looking Beyond Nigeria
Several jurisdictions have already begun recognising aspects of what is commonly referred to as the right of publicity or personality rights, granting individuals greater control over the commercial use of their name, image, voice, and likeness. Although these approaches differ across jurisdictions, they demonstrate an emerging international recognition that identity itself possesses independent commercial value.
Nigeria has an opportunity to participate in this evolving legal landscape by developing a coherent framework that reflects both technological realities and the growing economic importance of its creative industries.
Conclusion
Artificial intelligence has made it easier than ever to reproduce the characteristics that make entertainers recognisable. The law, however, has yet to determine the full extent to which those characteristics deserve independent legal protection.
The question is no longer whether fame can be copied. Technology has already answered that question. The more pressing issue is whether the law should recognise that fame, when cultivated through years of talent, creativity, discipline, and public trust, is itself a valuable commercial asset worthy of legal protection.
As Nigeria’s entertainment industry continues to expand and digital technologies become increasingly sophisticated, protecting commercial identity may prove to be one of the next great frontiers of entertainment law. The future of creative innovation will depend not only on safeguarding the works artists produce but also on protecting the identities that give those works their enduring value.