Can a Podcast Use My Name, Photo and Voice in Ads Without Asking?

What Do New York and California Say About Using a Person's Name, Photo or Voice in Ads?

New York's rule is short and criminal. Civil Rights Law §50 reads: “A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait, picture, likeness, or voice of any living person without having first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of such minor's parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor” (N.Y. Civil Rights Law §50). Section 51 adds a civil route: the person “may maintain an equitable action in the supreme court of this state” to stop the use, may sue for damages, and for knowing use “the jury, in its discretion, may award exemplary damages” (N.Y. Civil Rights Law §51).

California's rule is civil. Civil Code §3344(a)(1) makes liable “Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness” for advertising or selling “without that person's prior consent” (Cal. Civ. Code §3344). New York says written; California says prior and does not say written.

Does Agreeing to the Interview Mean Agreeing to the Ads?

Neither statute treats sitting for a recording as consent to advertising. Both turn on the purpose of the use: advertising or trade in New York, advertising or selling in California.

California also says what does not need consent. Section 3344(d) excludes a use “in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign.” Section 3344(e) speaks to sponsored media: consent is not required “solely because the material containing the use is commercially sponsored or contains paid advertising.” Instead, “it shall be a question of fact” whether the use was “so directly connected with the commercial sponsorship or with the paid advertising” as to need consent (Cal. Civ. Code §3344).

New York's §§50 and 51 do not contain the word “news.” Where the line falls between a newsworthy interview and a use for trade is set by court decisions, which we did not review, so we make no claim about how any episode would be classified. Our recommendation, not a statutory rule, is to treat the episode and the advertising around it as separate permissions, both in writing. For the recording itself, see how to get consent to record a podcast guest.

Which Podcast Promotion Uses Raise the Question?

The right-hand column is our recommendation, not a requirement of either statute.

Shows that insert new ads into back-catalog episodes make the sponsor row more likely to matter, because the ad beside an interview can change long after recording; see what dynamic ad insertion is. If a show presents a guest as backing a product, the FTC's Endorsement Guides apply: “depictions of the name, signature, likeness or other identifying personal characteristics of an individual” can be endorsements, which “may not be presented out of context or reworded so as to distort in any way the endorser's opinion” (16 CFR Part 255).

What Changed for AI-Cloned Voices?

Two California bills are easy to confuse. SB 683 was approved on October 10, 2025 as Chapter 590 (SB 683) and added the injunction paragraph to §3344. Its digest says it would incorporate SB 11's changes to §3344 “operative only if this bill and SB 11 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.” SB 11 was vetoed on October 13, 2025, and the veto was sustained on March 2, 2026 (SB 11). The current §3344 does not contain the words “digital replica.” A November 2025 law-firm post says SB 683 extended §3344 to digital replicas (Hunton Andrews Kurth); the legislative record does not support that.

The change came in SB 1111, approved September 30, 2026 as Chapter 862, Statutes of 2026 (SB 1111; Governor of California). It adds to §3344: “For the purposes of this section, a voice or likeness includes a digital replica, as defined in Section 3344.1.” That definition reaches a “computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation that is readily identifiable as the voice or visual likeness of an individual,” including real recordings whose “fundamental character” has been “materially altered” (Cal. Civ. Code §3344.1). SB 1111 also deletes the presumption that an employee's incidental appearance in an ad was not a knowing use. It is not an urgency bill, and a regular-session statute takes effect on “January 1 next following a 90-day period from the date of enactment” (Cal. Const. art. IV, §8(c)): January 1, 2027.

In New York, digital replicas appear in Civil Rights Law §50-f, which covers deceased personalities and performers and makes a knowing, unauthorized use of a deceased performer's replica in an audiovisual work, sound recording or live musical performance actionable (N.Y. Civil Rights Law §50-f). General Business Law §396-b is a disclosure rule, not a likeness right: it covers a synthetic performer “not recognizable as any identifiable natural performer” and exempts “Audio advertisements” (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §396-b). A clone of a real guest is therefore a likeness question. For the trademark route, see whether an executive can trademark their voice; for AI training on interview audio, see whether a recording platform can train AI on your interview. This is not legal advice.

What Can a Guest Recover If It Happens Anyway?

In California, a violator owes “the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or the actual damages,” plus attributable profits; “Punitive damages may also be awarded,” and the prevailing party is “entitled to attorney's fees and costs,” which can cut either way. A respondent ordered to remove the material must comply “within two business days from the day the order is served, unless otherwise required by the order” (Cal. Civ. Code §3344).

The chart shows that the largest fixed sum, $10,000, applies to digital replicas of a deceased personality in California, while the floor for a living person in California is $750 and New York's §51 sets none.

Section 3344(f) excludes owners and employees of “any medium used for advertising,” such as “radio and television networks and stations,” unless they knew of the unauthorized use; whether a podcast making its own promos fits is a question for counsel. A written takedown request is the usual first step; that is our recommendation, not a statutory requirement. See whether a placement can be removed, and for a guest's own exposure, whether a podcast guest can be sued.

What This Means for Anyone Buying a Placement

Everything below is our recommendation, not a rule in any statute.

1. Read the release before the recording. Check whether it covers only the episode or also promotion, paid ads and third-party sponsors.
2. Narrow the broad grant. Rights “in any media” for any purpose, forever, may be read as consent to far more than an interview. Carve out paid ads and sponsor use.
3. Address AI explicitly. Bar synthetic voice or likeness without separate written consent. California's statute reaches replicas of living people from January 1, 2027; a contract term works now.
4. Treat paid spots as advertising. A paid appearance or sponsored segment is advertising and should be disclosed and labeled as sponsored. Payment guarantees no audience, ranking or permanence.

Methodology and Limitations

Four limits apply. First, we read statute text, not court decisions, and case law decides where “advertising or trade” begins in New York and when a use is “so directly connected” with sponsorship in California. Second, we covered New York and California, and Illinois only for its damages figure. Third, the leginfo web pages blocked automated access, so California code and bill texts were read in the Legislature's official data files at downloads.leginfo.legislature.ca.gov; links point to the matching leginfo pages. Fourth, the January 1, 2027 date for SB 1111 is our application of the constitutional rule, not a date printed in the bill. This is not legal advice.

Conclusion

A podcast needs consent to use a guest's name, picture or voice in advertising in both states we read: in writing in New York, in advance in California. The hard cases sit in between, because California says sponsorship alone does not make an episode an ad and New York leaves newsworthiness to the courts. The uncomfortable point for anyone being booked is that the interview, the promo graphic, the paid ad and an AI clone are four different permissions, and a release that grants everything in one sentence may give them all away.

Frequently Asked Questions

Sources

Built from the official text of New York Civil Rights Law §§50, 51 and 50-f and General Business Law §396-b (New York State Senate), California Civil Code §§3344 and 3344.1 and the bill records for SB 683, SB 11 and SB 1111 (California Legislature, read in its official data files), the California Constitution, the Illinois Right of Publicity Act and the FTC's Endorsement Guides, all read on October 12, 2026. The release recommendations are ours, not statutory rules. We did not review court decisions. This is not legal advice.

1. official New York State Senate, Civil Rights Law §50, Right of privacy. The misdemeanor, the written-consent rule and the attributes named; latest revision listed May 3, 2024. Read October 12, 2026.
2. official New York State Senate, Civil Rights Law §51, Action for injunction and for damages. The civil action, injunction, damages and exemplary damages; absence of a news exception in the text. Read October 12, 2026.
3. official New York State Senate, Civil Rights Law §50-f. Digital-replica definition for deceased performers, the $2,000 minimum and the December 19, 2025 revision date. Read October 12, 2026.
4. official New York State Senate, General Business Law §396-b. Synthetic-performer definition, disclosure duty and the audio-advertisement exemption. Read October 12, 2026.
5. official California Legislature, Civil Code §3344. Current text (amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 590, effective January 1, 2026): prior consent, $750 floor, profits, punitive damages, fees, injunctions, two business days, news and sponsorship provisions, media-owner carve-out. Read in the Legislature's official data files at downloads.leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. Read October 12, 2026.
6. official California Legislature, Civil Code §3344.1. Deceased-personality rules, the $750 and $10,000 minimums and the digital-replica definition. Read in the official data files. Read October 12, 2026.
7. official California Legislature, SB 683 (2025), Chapter 590. Approval and chaptering on October 10, 2025, the digest and the conditional SB 11 section. Read in the official data files. Read October 12, 2026.
8. official California Legislature, SB 11 (2025) history. Veto on October 13, 2025 and veto sustained March 2, 2026. Read in the official data files. Read October 12, 2026.
9. official California Legislature, SB 1111 (2026), Chapter 862. Approval and chaptering on September 30, 2026, the digest, new §3344(f) and the non-urgency status. Read in the official data files. Read October 12, 2026.
10. official California Legislature, California Constitution, article IV, section 8. The January 1 effective-date rule for regular-session statutes. Read in the official data files. Read October 12, 2026.
11. official Governor of California, California's nation-leading AI framework just got stronger, Governor Newsom signs more first-in-the-nation worker protections and more, September 30, 2026. Lists SB 1111 among bills signed. Read October 12, 2026.
12. official Illinois General Assembly, 765 ILCS 1075/40, Violations; monetary relief. The $1,000 alternative minimum. Read October 12, 2026.
13. regulator eCFR (Federal Trade Commission), 16 CFR Part 255, Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising. Likeness as endorsement and the rule against distorting an endorser's opinion. Read October 12, 2026.
14. law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth, California Adds Injunctive Relief to its Right of Publicity Statute and Extends Liability to Digital Replicas, November 5, 2025. Cited only as the summary whose digital-replica statement conflicts with the legislative record. Read October 12, 2026.