Licensed celebrity images as the basis of a character
A license for an image and a character 'based on' is not the same
Confusion arises because the final visual may look similar: in both cases, a figure resembling a real person appears on packaging or in advertising. However, the legal structure behind them is different, and it determines everything — from budget to launch speed.
| Criterion | License for a direct image | Character inspired by an image |
|---|---|---|
| What the brand purchases | A specific person, name, voice, recognizable features | Stylistic reference without a literal portrait |
| Who approves the materials | The rights holder or heirs — almost every frame | Usually only a concept, after which the brand is free |
| Cost | Royalties for use + fee for each new application | One-time license for the concept or its complete absence |
| Main risk | A scandal with a celebrity hits the brand directly | Claim for excessive similarity and violation of the right to publicity |
| Duration of validity | Limited by contract, requires extension | May be indefinite if the character is legally autonomous |
Why brands turn a star's image into a character — and what they pay for it
The Reebok project «Boost Lee», alluding to Bruce Lee, and the «Mother Fitness» line built around the image of Megan Thee Stallion demonstrate the same logic: a brand needs an emotional connection with an icon, but does not want to rely fully on a contract with that person or their heirs. The character provides recognizability of the celebrity, while remaining the brand's property — it can be changed, animated, embedded into various product lines without a new round of negotiations each time.
The price for this freedom is constant legal oversight at the entry point. Bruce Lee Enterprises required approval of the actor selection, scripts, storyboards, and the final video when creating 'Boost Lee' — that is, they controlled not the end result but the entire production process. This is a normal practice for major rights holders: they protect not only the image but also the reputational integrity of the character. A similar principle applies at Bubbles Inc, the company managing Charlie Chaplin's legacy: they do not issue a license for 'Little Tramp' if the quality of the product or the spirit of the campaign does not match the character's image. This is a strategic, not formal, decision — the rights holder protects the celebrity brand's capital just as rigorously as their own.
Who coordinates the character and at what stages
The process of transforming a living image into a brand character rarely fits into a single deal. It is a sequence of approvals, each of which can halt the project or shift the timeline by months.
- Pitch and brief to the rights holder — the brand describes the concept of use and target audience.
- Approval of the visual concept — sketches, style, degree of similarity to the original.
- Casting of an actor or voice selection, if the character requires a live embodiment in advertising.
- Approval of scripts and storyboards for each campaign, not just the 'pilot' video.
- Final review of the material before publication — the rights holder views the finished product.
- Periodic audit of usage — checking that the character does not go beyond the agreed context.
Every additional level of approval increases the budget: rightsholders usually charge extra for extended control rights, and the campaign launch timeline stretches — from weeks to several months, especially if the heirs are scattered across different jurisdictions and decisions are made collectively.
How to protect a finished character: trademark, copyright, or both
Even if the character is legally independent, the brand needs to secure rights to it separately from the rights to the original celebrity image — otherwise, a competitor will replicate the idea within a month.
- Copyright protects a specific visual execution — the drawing, design, animation of the character.
- A trademark protects the name of a character and its use in specific product categories — this is what prevents other companies from releasing products under a similar name.
- The right of publicity regulates how much a character can resemble a living person without their consent — this area of law operates separately from copyright and requires independent legal analysis by a lawyer.
A telling case is the registration of SIBUR's trademark with the image of Mendeleev: the company proved that the character serves educational purposes and does not commercially exploit the image of the scientist, which became a decisive argument. A separate issue of recent years has been deepfake technology: now it is necessary to put not only the face but also the voice, distinctive gestures, and speech mannerism of a public figure under protection, as it has become technically easier to synthesize a 'similar' character than to secure rights over it.
When consent from heirs is not required
Not every image requires negotiations with the rights holder. According to Russian and Ukrainian law, through 70 years after the author's death, their image passes into the public domain and can be used without the consent of the heirs — this applies to literary and fictional characters created by the author. However, an important caveat: the right to the image of a specific person and the copyright on the image created by them are different categories, and the transition of one into the public domain does not automatically release the other. Before relying on 'expiration of the term,' it is advisable to check both regimes separately, not just one of them.
A mascot character or a star's image — which to choose
Here, the data speaks more clearly than marketing intuition. The Distinctive BAT study shows that mascots are recognized by 68% of consumers versus 50% for celebrity endorsers, and consumers associate the character specifically with the brand 45% versus 21% for celebrities. The gap is simple to explain — a mascot belongs to only one brand, whereas a celebrity appears in dozens of campaigns simultaneously, causing consumers to get confused about who 'belongs' to whom at any given moment.
At the same time, a licensed image still works as a sales accelerator: according to Julia Vysotskaya's assessment, products with a license from a well-known brand or character sell at least 50% better than unbranded analogs. The result stability is higher in lifestyle categories — food, family products, household goods — and significantly lower where a celebrity's reputation is volatile. A reasonable strategy for a brand that wants a long-term asset rather than a one-time spike is to use a celebrity's image as a starting point for design, but develop the character to a legally independent form, protected by its own trademark.
A license for an image and a character 'based on' is not the same
Confusion arises because the final visual may look similar: in both cases, a figure resembling a real person appears on packaging or in advertising. However, the legal structure behind them is different, and it determines everything — from budget to launch speed.
| Criterion | License for a direct image | Character inspired by an image |
|---|---|---|
| What the brand purchases | A specific person, name, voice, recognizable features | Stylistic reference without a literal portrait |
| Who approves the materials | The rights holder or heirs — almost every frame | Usually only a concept, after which the brand is free |
| Cost | Royalties for use + fee for each new application | One-time license for the concept or its complete absence |
| Main risk | A scandal with a celebrity hits the brand directly | Claim for excessive similarity and violation of the right to publicity |
| Duration of validity | Limited by contract, requires extension | May be indefinite if the character is legally autonomous |
Why brands turn a star's image into a character — and what they pay for it
The Reebok project «Boost Lee», alluding to Bruce Lee, and the «Mother Fitness» line built around the image of Megan Thee Stallion demonstrate the same logic: a brand needs an emotional connection with an icon, but does not want to rely fully on a contract with that person or their heirs. The character provides recognizability of the celebrity, while remaining the brand's property — it can be changed, animated, embedded into various product lines without a new round of negotiations each time.
The price for this freedom is constant legal oversight at the entry point. Bruce Lee Enterprises required approval of the actor selection, scripts, storyboards, and the final video when creating 'Boost Lee' — that is, they controlled not the end result but the entire production process. This is a normal practice for major rights holders: they protect not only the image but also the reputational integrity of the character. A similar principle applies at Bubbles Inc, the company managing Charlie Chaplin's legacy: they do not issue a license for 'Little Tramp' if the quality of the product or the spirit of the campaign does not match the character's image. This is a strategic, not formal, decision — the rights holder protects the celebrity brand's capital just as rigorously as their own.
Who coordinates the character and at what stages
The process of transforming a living image into a brand character rarely fits into a single deal. It is a sequence of approvals, each of which can halt the project or shift the timeline by months.
- Pitch and brief to the rights holder — the brand describes the concept of use and target audience.
- Approval of the visual concept — sketches, style, degree of similarity to the original.
- Casting of an actor or voice selection, if the character requires a live embodiment in advertising.
- Approval of scripts and storyboards for each campaign, not just the 'pilot' video.
- Final review of the material before publication — the rights holder views the finished product.
- Periodic audit of usage — checking that the character does not go beyond the agreed context.
Every additional level of approval increases the budget: rightsholders usually charge extra for extended control rights, and the campaign launch timeline stretches — from weeks to several months, especially if the heirs are scattered across different jurisdictions and decisions are made collectively.
How to protect a finished character: trademark, copyright, or both
Even if the character is legally independent, the brand needs to secure rights to it separately from the rights to the original celebrity image — otherwise, a competitor will replicate the idea within a month.
- Copyright protects a specific visual execution — the drawing, design, animation of the character.
- A trademark protects the name of a character and its use in specific product categories — this is what prevents other companies from releasing products under a similar name.
- The right of publicity regulates how much a character can resemble a living person without their consent — this area of law operates separately from copyright and requires independent legal analysis by a lawyer.
A telling case is the registration of SIBUR's trademark with the image of Mendeleev: the company proved that the character serves educational purposes and does not commercially exploit the image of the scientist, which became a decisive argument. A separate issue of recent years has been deepfake technology: now it is necessary to put not only the face but also the voice, distinctive gestures, and speech mannerism of a public figure under protection, as it has become technically easier to synthesize a 'similar' character than to secure rights over it.
When consent from heirs is not required
Not every image requires negotiations with the rights holder. According to Russian and Ukrainian law, through 70 years after the author's death, their image passes into the public domain and can be used without the consent of the heirs — this applies to literary and fictional characters created by the author. However, an important caveat: the right to the image of a specific person and the copyright on the image created by them are different categories, and the transition of one into the public domain does not automatically release the other. Before relying on 'expiration of the term,' it is advisable to check both regimes separately, not just one of them.
A mascot character or a star's image — which to choose
Here, the data speaks more clearly than marketing intuition. The Distinctive BAT study shows that mascots are recognized by 68% of consumers versus 50% for celebrity endorsers, and consumers associate the character specifically with the brand 45% versus 21% for celebrities. The gap is simple to explain — a mascot belongs to only one brand, whereas a celebrity appears in dozens of campaigns simultaneously, causing consumers to get confused about who 'belongs' to whom at any given moment.
At the same time, a licensed image still works as a sales accelerator: according to Julia Vysotskaya's assessment, products with a license from a well-known brand or character sell at least 50% better than unbranded analogs. The result stability is higher in lifestyle categories — food, family products, household goods — and significantly lower where a celebrity's reputation is volatile. A reasonable strategy for a brand that wants a long-term asset rather than a one-time spike is to use a celebrity's image as a starting point for design, but develop the character to a legally independent form, protected by its own trademark.
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
