The German law that governs commercial use of photographs of people is older than digital photography, older than social media, older than artificial intelligence. It was written in 1907 and the operative paragraph has barely changed since. The provision is § 22 of the Kunsturhebergesetz, the Act on Copyright in Works of Visual Arts and Photography, and it is the foundation of the right to your own image in Germany.
The actual rule
The rule, paraphrased: photographs of a person may only be distributed or publicly displayed with that person's consent. Consent is presumed only in narrow circumstances, for instance if the person was paid as a model. After death, the consent of close relatives is needed for ten years.
The legal mechanics are simple. If a brand wants to use your face in an ad, the brand needs your consent. If they don't have it, you can demand the campaign be pulled, and you can claim damages. The burden of proving consent, that it was given, that it covers the actual use, sits on the brand, not on you.
What "consent" has to look like
Consent has to be informed. You have to know what you are agreeing to: which campaign, which channels, which duration, which industries. A vague "I agree to my likeness being used" is legally weak. Consent specific to a defined use is legally strong.
Consent does not have to be in writing to be valid, but in commercial contexts it is almost always in writing, because the brand needs evidence in case of dispute. A model release is the standard form. A digital signature on a defined license is a modern equivalent.
The narrow exceptions
§ 23 KUG carves out exceptions where consent is not required: persons of contemporary history (politicians, athletes, public figures in their public role), pictures where the person is incidental to a landscape or location, public events of public interest, and works of art where higher artistic interests prevail.
These exceptions are narrow. "Public figure" does not mean "famous enough that anyone can use them in an ad." Even strong public figures retain control over commercial use of their image. A photo of a politician at a press conference can be reproduced editorially. A photo of the same politician in a beer advertisement requires their consent.
Where § 22 KUG meets AI
AI-generated images of real people fall under the same rule, by analogy. German courts have consistently held that the right to one's own image extends to depictions that are recognizably one's own, regardless of medium. A drawing, a painting, a digital composite, all bound by the same consent requirement. AI-generated portraits are no different.
The recognizability standard is permissive: if a reasonable observer would identify the depicted person, § 22 KUG applies. The defendant cannot escape the rule by arguing the image is "fictional", fictional in the sense that no specific photo was used, but not fictional in the sense of being unrelated to a real person.
What this means for you, practically
If your face shows up in an advertisement you didn't agree to, you have a legal claim. If a brand uses an AI-generated face that resembles you closely enough to be recognizable, the same applies. The remedies are: takedown, damages, and in egregious cases, injunctive relief and additional compensation.
On the other side: when you license your image to a brand, what you are signing is a § 22 KUG-compliant consent. The contract documents the scope, the duration, the channels, and converts open-ended exposure into a defined commercial relationship. That is the basis of every honest likeness business, and it is what FaceLedger formalizes operationally.
Your face is yours. § 22 KUG says so. Anyone who wants to use it commercially needs to ask you, and asking has to be specific enough that you can meaningfully say yes or no.
Every AI-generated face is a legal risk. Unless it is licensed.
Protect your identity