Mills & Reeve, with support and encouragement from a growing number of institutional and individual supporters. The campaign’s institutional supporters are shown on the scrollable banner on the mynamemyface.com homepage, and its individual supporters are shown on the supporter gallery of the mynamemyface.com homepage.

We live in a world of digital media, in which we are all exposed to content which features still and moving images or representations of real people. Until recently, it was (for the most part) relatively easy to spot whether content was real or fake, and whether the use of someone’s name, face or voice was authorised. Now, on many of the platforms which we use to access information and consume content, we cannot be sure whether the content we see and hear is, authorised or unauthorised, real or fake.

My Name, My Face provides a platform for all of us to demonstrate the depth and breadth of support for the introduction of appropriate and effective legislation to address this growing threat to our personal autonomy. By becoming a supporter, and authorising us to add your name and your face to our gallery of supporters, you can help demonstrate that depth and breadth.

No. The rapid development and availability of generative AI tools – and the associated emergence and prevalence of unauthorised deep-fakes – has increased the risk of exploitative, and often abusive, uses of aspects of our personal identities, including our faces and voices. It does not begin and end with AI-generated content, though. The unauthorised use of non-AI generated content featuring aspects of our personal identities (including names, photographs, audio and video footage) has been an unresolved problem for a very long time. Generative AI has just made those unauthorised uses easier and, as a result, more prevalent.

No. Although a higher percentage of famous and high-profile individuals have aspects of their personal identities hijacked and exploited than non-famous individuals, this issue is a threat for everyone. There are many examples of non-famous individuals having their images copied and modified, being depicted doing things they haven’t done and saying things they haven’t said. As the sophistication and accessibility of generative AI tools increases the risk increases, for all of us.

As the government has acknowledged (in its March 2026 Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, which is accessible in full here), developments in AI are making digital replicas (aka deepfakes) more commonplace, and “existing protections do not give most individuals meaningful control over their image of voice or access to realistic remedies”.

The unauthorised exploitation of names, likenesses, voices and other elements of personal identities is no longer happening to the few, it is happening en masse. For example:

• False depiction in events/ activities (including politically motivated ones) causing reputational harm

• The spread of misinformation or disinformation

• Intimate image abuse

• Digital replicas competing with real works thus denying revenues

• False endorsement

Due to these growing problems, the government proposes to explore a range of options to help clarify when digital replicas are legitimate and to help guard against unacceptable imitation. This will include the case for greater commercial protections, and whether these should form part of any wider safeguards, or rights to personality within the UK. My Name, My Face supports legislative intervention and the introduction of a specific personality right in the UK as a priority.

The unauthorised use of personal attributes like names, faces, voices and likenesses is not victimless. It can damage dignity, reputation, creative and commercial opportunity, and livelihoods.

In the UK there is no specific law or right which anyone (famous or otherwise) can confidently rely upon to stop others making use of their name, likeness, image, or voice without consent. Instead, there is a “patchwork” of other laws, none of which were conceived or drafted with the aim of protecting such rights. Depending on the circumstances, these laws may or may not be relied upon to prevent unauthorised use of these personal attributes.

This is a major gap. An effective personality rights regime would give all individuals (not just celebrities) more control over the use of these personal attributes, and create real jeopardy and consequences for those who exploit or facilitate the exploitation of those attributes without consent..

The government has acknowledged that the protections in place today do not cover the full risks associated with digital replicas, and has said that it will consider whether a new personality right may be appropriate. My Name, My Face believes that it’s not only appropriate, but overdue.

In part, but not fully.

The rights conferred by trade mark law fill some of the gaps in the patchwork of rights which are not filled by any other law in the UK.

Whilst applications for trade marks over a person’s name, or signature have been successfully made for a number of years, applications to register an image of someone’s face remain rare/ non-traditional. Such applications are not straight-forward. They are likely to encounter increased scrutiny and possibly objection on one or more of the absolute grounds for refusal of registration which are included in the UK’s trade mark legislation. Applications also carry costs and the increased likelihood of facing objections means more potential costs.

The scope of protection for faces / likenesses provided by trade mark registration is also unclear. Being non-traditional brand assets, the application of the law in this context hasn’t been tested in the UK courts. Recent well publicised trade mark applications by celebrities like Cole Palmer for his goal celebration and Luke Littler for his face are innovative and arguably push the boundaries of the scope of protection of registered trade marks. Such boundaries are being pushed because there are very few viable alternatives for individuals to protect aspects of their personality.

Compare this to a stand-alone personality right in the UK that arose automatically without the onus and cost being on the individual to proactively protect their personal assets.

Crucially, trade mark rights can only be used to prevent unauthorised commercial uses, and very many of the more abusive and exploitative uses of our names, faces and voices are not commercial at all.

Whilst data protection law can provide important protection for personal data, it was not designed specifically to address the risks presented by deepfakes, digital replicas and other forms of identity exploitation. Instead, it regulates the processing of personal data and permits processing in a wide range of circumstances without the individual’s consent, provided an organisation can identify a lawful basis and comply with the data protection principles.

As a result, individuals seeking to challenge the creation or use of deepfakes, digital replicas or other forms of identity misuse often have to rely on broader arguments that the processing was unlawful, unfair or insufficiently transparent, rather than point to a specific rule prohibiting the activity itself.

Data protection law can therefore provide an important route to challenge the misuse of personal data and obtain remedies where harm has been caused. However, it was not designed to provide comprehensive control over the use of a person's identity. Instead, its focus is on regulating how personal data is processed. As a result, whilst data protection law forms an important part of the current framework, many consider that a dedicated personality right is needed alongside existing protections.