How Should Brands Handle Likeness and Signature Assets in Campaigns?

A recognizable cue can carry the whole reference

A hairstyle, pose, costume, voice, or familiar phrase can make an audience think of a particular person. Removing a name from the artwork may leave that reference intact. For a designer, the practical question is what people will understand from the finished campaign.

Creative Bloq reporting on Haaland and Norwegian Air, 3 October 2026 reports a dispute involving an airline post that placed a hairstyle associated with Erling Haaland onto a plane. The report describes a claim, not a court finding. It is a useful prompt to review the full visual message rather than treating face removal as permission.

Separate personal likeness from owned brand assets

A company's custom illustration, a licensed photograph, a celebrity reference, and a customer's testimonial belong in different approval paths. Having the source file proves access to an asset. It does not, by itself, establish permission for every placement or adaptation.

In my Alex Boyé identity work, a musician's brand is presented through a designed mark and typography. That case study illustrates a professional identity application. It does not give another advertiser permission to associate the musician with its product.

Use an asset register that answers real questions

• Source: who created the image, recording, illustration, or reference?
• Subject: who or what could an audience recognize?
• Scope: which channels, countries, formats, and dates are approved?
• Edits: does approval cover cropping, animation, compositing, or synthetic variations?
• Record: where is the agreement and who checked this final version?

A fictional sports retailer might have permission for an athlete's event photograph in an editorial recap, while wanting to use the same photograph in a paid sales ad. Flag the change in purpose before it becomes a layout task. The campaign owner should confirm the required rights with the rights holder and legal adviser.

Review the impression, not just the ingredients

Put the final headline, visual, logo, caption, and placement together. Does the combination suggest sponsorship or personal endorsement? Would a cropped version imply something the original does not? Check the smallest format too, because that may remove the context that makes the relationship clear.

For endorsements aimed at US consumers, FTC guidance on social media endorsement disclosures says material connections should be disclosed clearly. Disclosure and permission are separate questions: a disclosure does not supply missing rights, and an approved photograph does not explain a commercial relationship.

Give the team approved alternatives

A productive review should leave room for the idea to improve. Replace an identifiable personal cue with an original character, a commissioned visual, or a product-specific story when that solves the brief. Avoid substitutes deliberately built to evoke the same person if recognition is the issue being reviewed.

AI-generated likeness variations belong in the same review process. A newly generated file can still communicate the same association. Include prompts or source references in the private asset record where useful, without publishing private production material.

Make approval travel with the asset

Deliver approved variants alongside their usage notes. Record the final version, the authorized placements, and an expiry date where applicable. When a team changes the offer, territory, or subject, it should know that the approval may need to be revisited.

This complements my broader brand approval checklist: here the focus is the relationship between a recognizable cue and its allowed campaign use. A designer can document and flag that relationship; rights clearance requires the responsible specialists.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is removing a face enough to avoid a likeness issue?

No. A hairstyle, voice, costume, pose, or other recognizable cue may still identify someone. Assess the complete creative and obtain qualified advice about the proposed use.

Does disclosure replace permission?

No. Explaining a commercial relationship and obtaining permission to use an asset are separate parts of the review.