REFNATION
RightsEnded 13 Aug

Should the UK create a new legal right to protect people's image, voice and likeness from AI replicas?

Yes 83%No 17%240 votes cast

Macfarlanes analysis shows UK law offers thin protection against AI-generated replicas of real people. The March 2026 copyright and AI report noted existing laws may not protect the public from non-consensual imitation but set no deadline for action on digital replicas or personality rights. Unlike copyright issues, no statute requires the government to legislate.

Jump to opinions· 4

AI replicas produced a decisive verdict, but the sharper story was the silence around it: every written contribution came from the Yes side, leaving no No case on the page. That makes the vote look less like a settled compromise than a strong direction of travel with its boundaries still to be argued.

The respected Yes arguments pushed for protection without a blanket ban. One called for “Yes, but not too restrictive”, while another drew the line at consent: “I don't need the permission of John Wayne's descendants” for a fictional skit, but did not accept putting someone into AI pornography without permission.

There was no No voice to contest those distinctions, or to make the case for free expression, parody or practical limits. Instead, the floor’s own argument supplied the counterweight: a right should let people “remove and be compensated” where replicas were made or shared to harm or profit, while also limiting use in advertising, training and generated images.

That places the result in the UK’s wider argument over whether existing law can keep pace with synthetic media, or whether image and likeness need an explicit legal status of their own. The least-respected intervention was also the most emotionally direct, saying that stealing an image meant stealing “someone else's life”.

The platform settled the direction, not the drafting: protect identity first, fight over the edges afterwards.

“Yes, but not too restrictive. For example "Created by AI" well visible sign, when showing real people images.”

YES case · Slawomir · 1 respect

83%
Yes · 198 votes
17%
No · 42 votes
LeftCentreRight
Spread the wordShare
Debate

4 Opinions

Sign in and vote to share your opinion.
The Peacemaker
Voted yesC. Left lean

YES No one should be allowed to steal someone else's life, because that's what someone does when they steal your image, voice & likeness.. It's that simple

rjane· 358
The Public Power Architect
Voted yesC. Left lean

A persons image should be their own copyright, similar to the law being considered in Denmark. it should entitle you to remove and be compensated for images created or shared with intent to harm, or profit. Social media and AI and social media should not be able to use images ( except maybe crowd scenes) in adverts, ai training or created images etc without permission.

The Market-State Traditionalist
Voted yesRight lean

Yes but nuanced eg I don't need the permission of John Wayne's descendants to put him in an AI Star Trek skit. But I am forbidden to put anyone living or dead, into an AI p*rn film without permission. Etc.

Slawomir· 781
The Accountable Capitalist
Voted yesRight lean

Yes, but not too restrictive. For example "Created by AI" well visible sign, when showing real people images.