In today鈥檚 digital age, a person鈥檚 identity has become one of the most valuable assets he or she can own. Because of the rise of social media, artificial intelligence, and the content creator economy, a person鈥檚 identity now carries significant commercial value, creating opportunities for endorsements and business ventures. At the same time, this visibility increases the risk of identity theft, impersonation, and digital misuse, underscoring the importance of protecting one鈥檚 name, image, and likeness.
As AI tools become more sophisticated, individuals have been turning to intellectual property law to protect themselves and their likeness.
In the United States, Taylor Swift recently applied before the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for the registration of a mark which consists of a photograph of her 鈥渉olding a pink guitar, with a black strap and wearing a multi-colored iridescent bodysuit with silver boots.鈥 She also sought to register two sensory marks which consist of the spoken words 鈥淗ey, it鈥檚 Taylor Swift鈥 and 鈥淗ey, it鈥檚 Taylor.鈥1
Previously, Matthew McConaughey successfully registered four sound marks and four motion marks with the USPTO. His sound marks include his iconic phrase 鈥淎lright Alright Alright鈥 and 鈥淛ust keep livin鈥, right? I mean, what else are we gonna do.鈥 Meanwhile, his motion marks document his tilted head movements and expansive hand gestures. He also has a pending application for a signature image of himself posed against a wood background.2
While the US offers broad flexibility for such marks, the legal landscape in the Philippines operates under different constraints. There is currently no express law allowing the registration of the trademark of likeness, but protection is somehow afforded through a combination of existing IP, privacy, and civil laws.
The Philippine IP Code allows the registration of visual marks, including names, images, and motion marks3. Several local celebrities 鈥 including Sharon Cuneta, Noli De Castro, Pokwang, and Vice Ganda 鈥 have secured trademark registrations for their names which they use in the entertainment industry. The law also prohibits registering any mark which consists of a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent.4 In cases involving confusion or deception, the unauthorized use of a person鈥檚 likeness may also amount to unfair competition.5 Additional protection is provided by the New Civil Code which prohibits the unauthorized use and usurpation of another鈥檚 name.6 Meanwhile, the Data Privacy Act penalizes the unauthorized use and processing of personal information, including names and images of persons.7
Despite these, Philippine law remains primarily limited to visual marks, and does not yet extend formal trademark protection to an individual鈥檚 voice. To protect this aspect of one鈥檚 identity, the enactment of a legislation amending the IP Code is required.
There are at least three bills8 filed with the Senate and the House of Representatives proposing to codify one鈥檚 right over his or her likeness and identity. These bills uniformly provide that every person shall have the exclusive right to control and monetize the commercial use of their identity, including their name, image, video, portrait, voice, likeness, signature, and other identifiable personal attributes, even without formal registration.
The bills also provide for remedies, such as the immediate removal or takedown of content, the recovery of compensation and damages, and the right to initiate civil proceedings.9 One bill even proposes to create an office in the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines for the registration of likeness trademarks.
Even in the absence of a direct statute, it is clear that an individual鈥檚 identity may be protected as one鈥檚 intellectual property. However, as technology evolves and becomes more sophisticated, legal frameworks must also adapt. More than preserving reputation or celebrity status, protecting one鈥檚 likeness has become about defending the commercial and personal integrity of the individual in an increasingly digital and AI-driven world.
(This article is for general informational and educational purposes only and not offered as, and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion.)
1 https://tinyurl.com/2b3zywms
2 https://tinyurl.com/2a4unol3
https://tinyurl.com/2c3r799g
https://tinyurl.com/2dz2uj2v
https://tinyurl.com/25u7zos3
https://tinyurl.com/236ngfos
https://tinyurl.com/258lqamn
https://tinyurl.com/27zx4bdu
https://tinyurl.com/22nyhljx
https://tinyurl.com/29ston5t
https://tinyurl.com/2c8blcvk
https://tinyurl.com/29o2jkre
3 Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the 鈥淚ntellectual Property Code of the Philippines鈥; IPOPHL Memorandum Circular No. 2023-001.
4 Section 123.1(c), IP Code.
5 Section 168, IP Code.
6 Articles 377, 378 379, 380, New Civil Code.
7 Republic Act No. 10173, otherwise known as the 鈥淒ata Privacy Act of 2012鈥.
8 Senate Bill No. 758. An Act Recognizing Individual Rights Over One鈥檚 Likeness And Identity, Regulating The Creation And Use Of Deepfakes Through Disclosure, Consent, And Platform Accountability, Providing Remedies And Penalties Therefor, And For Other Purposes. (See https://senate.gov.ph/legacy/lis_bills/4729643295!.pdf) House Bill No. 3214. Establishing Protection Against Deepfakes, Recognizing the Right to One鈥檚 Face, Body and Voice, Providing Trademark Protection, and for Other Purposes. (See https://docs.congress.hrep.online/legisdocs/basic_20/HB03214.pdf) Senate Bill No. 1714. Safeguarding Individual Likeness, Identity, And Publicity Rights By Regulating The Creation And Use Of Deepfakes Through Disclosure, Consent, And Platform Accountability, And Providing Remedies And Penalties Therefor, And For Other Purposes. (See https://senate.gov.ph/legacy/lis_bills/4886444808!.pdf )
9 Senate Bill No. 758.
Atty. Clarisse Paulina M. Valdecantos is a senior associate of the Intellectual Property Department of Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRALAW).
+632-8830-8000
