1. Introduction

Synthetic influencer economic rights claims concern the legal disputes arising from the creation, ownership, commercialization and monetization of virtual influencers, AI-generated personalities, digital avatars and computer-generated social media identities.

A synthetic influencer is a digitally created personality that may appear human, communicate with followers, promote products, participate in advertising campaigns and generate commercial revenue without being an actual human performer.

Examples include:

AI-generated Instagram and TikTok personalities.

Virtual fashion models and digital brand ambassadors.

AI-generated celebrities used in commercial endorsements.

Synthetic personalities licensed to advertising agencies.

Digital avatars operated by companies or individual creators.

AI influencers trained using photographs, voices and behavioural characteristics of real people.

In Singapore, these disputes may involve several areas of civil law, particularly:

Intellectual property and copyright ownership.

Trade mark and passing-off protection.

Personality rights and commercial misappropriation.

Contractual ownership and licensing disputes.

Consumer protection and misleading endorsements.

Privacy and personal data protection.

Unjust enrichment and commercial revenue recovery.

Competition and unfair commercial practices.

Important legal distinction: Singapore does not have a comprehensive statutory right of publicity or a specific legal category of synthetic-influencer economic rights. Consequently, claims must generally be constructed using existing intellectual property, contract, tort, consumer protection and data protection principles.

The legal analysis must also distinguish between the economic rights of a real human whose identity has been digitally reproduced and the commercial interests of a creator or company that owns an entirely fictional synthetic personality.

2. Meaning and nature of synthetic influencer economic rights

Synthetic influencer economic rights refer to the legally protectable commercial interests associated with the creation, development, operation and exploitation of a virtual personality.

These rights may include:

A. Character ownership rights

Rights relating to the original visual appearance, character design, personality presentation, fictional biography and associated creative materials.

B. Copyright exploitation rights

Rights concerning original illustrations, photographs, videos, scripts, animations, music, promotional materials and other copyright-protected works.

C. Commercial licensing rights

Rights to authorize third parties to use a synthetic influencer for advertising, merchandising, endorsements and promotional campaigns.

D. Brand identity rights

Rights relating to the influencer's name, logo, distinctive commercial identity and registered or registrable trade marks.

E. Revenue participation rights

Contractual entitlements to advertising income, sponsorship payments, affiliate commissions, subscription revenue and merchandising profits.

F. Digital identity protection

Legal interests arising when a synthetic influencer imitates an identifiable human's face, voice, name or other personal characteristics.

These interests do not automatically belong to one person. Depending on the circumstances, ownership may be divided between the developer, designer, employer, commissioning business, platform operator and licensing agency.

3. Singapore's legal framework

3.1 Copyright Act 2021

The Copyright Act 2021 is central to disputes concerning synthetic influencer content.

It may protect original human-authored materials, including:

Character illustrations and artwork.

Original photographs and videos.

Advertising scripts and written biographies.

Musical compositions and sound recordings.

Original animations and audiovisual productions.

A critical issue concerns authorship and originality.

Under Singapore copyright principles, copyright protection does not automatically arise merely because an AI system generates commercially valuable material.

Where a synthetic influencer is generated using AI, the claimant must identify the relevant human authorship, qualifying work and ownership arrangements.

A company may own copyright through employment or a valid assignment, depending on the statutory rules and contractual circumstances.

3.2 Trade Marks Act 1998

The Trade Marks Act protects registered commercial identifiers.

A synthetic influencer's name, logo or distinctive brand sign may qualify for trade mark registration if the statutory requirements are satisfied.

Potential disputes include:

Unauthorized use of an influencer's commercial name.

Registration of confusingly similar virtual-character brands.

Imitation of an established digital personality.

Unauthorized merchandising.

False commercial association.

3.3 Common-law passing off

Passing off may apply when a business misrepresents its products, services or commercial association in a manner likely to damage another party's goodwill.

For a successful claim, the claimant generally needs to establish:

Goodwill associated with the relevant commercial identity.

A misrepresentation by the defendant.

Damage or a sufficient likelihood of damage.

A synthetic influencer may develop valuable commercial goodwill through sponsorships, audience recognition and established brand associations.

However, mere similarity between two fictional digital characters does not automatically establish passing off.

3.4 Contract law

Contract law is particularly important because synthetic influencer businesses frequently operate through agreements between:

AI developers and digital agencies.

Character designers and production companies.

Influencer management agencies and brands.

Advertising agencies and platform operators.

Developers and commercial investors.

Contracts should clearly identify ownership, licensing, exclusivity, revenue-sharing, termination and post-termination rights.

3.5 Personal Data Protection Act 2012

The PDPA becomes relevant when synthetic influencer creation or commercialization involves personal data belonging to identifiable individuals.

Examples include:

Training AI models on identifiable photographs.

Reproducing a person's voice.

Processing facial images.

Creating digital replicas of employees or performers.

Using personal data for commercial targeting.

The legal position depends on the applicable statutory requirements, exceptions and circumstances of processing.

A synthetic character is not automatically personal data merely because it looks human.

3.6 Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003

Commercial campaigns using synthetic influencers may create consumer protection disputes where advertisements contain misleading representations.

Potential issues include:

Fabricated product experiences.

False claims that a virtual influencer personally tested a product.

Misleading representations about the identity of an endorser.

Undisclosed commercial relationships where disclosure is necessary to prevent deception.

The commercial use of synthetic personalities therefore creates potential liability for advertisers, agencies and businesses.

4. Important Singapore case laws

The following cases provide judicial principles relevant to synthetic influencer economic rights. They are not all direct synthetic-influencer decisions; their application is by analogy to ownership, goodwill, digital identity, commercial exploitation and infringement disputes.

Case 1. Asia Pacific Publishing Pte Ltd v Pioneers & Leaders (Publishers) Pte Ltd [2011] SGCA 37

Subject: Human authorship and copyright ownership

Facts:
The dispute concerned copyright protection for horse-racing information tables published in a competing publication. The claimant's ability to identify the human author responsible for the tables was a central issue.

Legal issue:
Whether copyright could subsist in a work without identifying the human author responsible for its creation.

Judgment and principle:
The Court of Appeal emphasised the importance of human authorship in copyright protection for authorial works.

Application to synthetic influencers:

AI-generated influencer images do not automatically qualify for copyright protection as original authorial works.

A developer must establish the relevant human creative contribution.

Character designers may establish rights through their original creative work.

Businesses should retain records of design decisions, editing and creative supervision.

Importance: This case is fundamental when determining whether a synthetic influencer's visual identity and associated creative materials are copyright-protected.

Case 2. Global Yellow Pages Ltd v Promedia Directories Pte Ltd [2017] SGCA 28

Subject: Originality and intellectual effort

Facts:
The dispute concerned copyright protection for telephone directory listings and compilations.

Legal issue:
Whether the material involved sufficient intellectual effort and originality to qualify for copyright protection.

Judgment and principle:
The Court of Appeal explained that copyright requires an authorial creation causally connected with the engagement of human intellect.

Application to synthetic influencers:

Merely entering simple prompts into an AI generator may not establish copyright ownership over the resulting character.

Human selection, arrangement and modification may support copyright protection.

Original character development and creative editing can strengthen an ownership claim.

A commercially successful AI personality is not automatically a copyright-protected asset in its entirety.

Importance: This decision helps distinguish human-created influencer assets from material generated substantially autonomously by AI.

Case 3. Novelty Pte Ltd v Amanresorts Ltd [2009] 3 SLR(R) 216

Subject: Commercial goodwill and passing off

Facts:
The dispute involved the use of the name Amanusa in connection with a property development and its possible association with the established Amanresorts brand.

Legal issue:
Whether the use of a similar commercial identity constituted passing off.

Judgment and principle:
The Court of Appeal recognised the classical requirements of passing off:

Goodwill.

Misrepresentation.

Damage.

The judgment also recognised the commercial significance of personality endorsements and the exploitation of names and images.

Application to synthetic influencers:

A commercially established virtual influencer may develop valuable goodwill.

Competitors cannot freely misrepresent their products as being associated with that influencer's established business.

Unauthorized imitation may create confusion regarding sponsorship or commercial affiliation.

A synthetic influencer management company may potentially pursue passing-off remedies where it owns or controls the relevant goodwill.

Importance: This is particularly relevant when a virtual influencer becomes a recognisable commercial brand.

Case 4. Singsung Pte Ltd v LG 26 Electronics Pte Ltd [2016] SGCA 33

Subject: Passing off and protection of commercial identity

Facts:
The litigation involved competing commercial activities and claims concerning the use of distinctive commercial identifiers.

Legal issue:
The Court considered the legal requirements for passing off and the need to establish goodwill, misrepresentation and damage.

Judgment and principle:
The Court of Appeal reaffirmed the classical passing-off framework and explained the importance of identifying the goodwill associated with the claimant's business and commercial presentation.

Application to synthetic influencers:

A virtual influencer's commercial identity may acquire goodwill through repeated advertising and consumer recognition.

A competing agency may face liability if it creates a misleading impression of commercial association.

The claimant must demonstrate more than mere visual resemblance.

Evidence of audience confusion and lost sponsorship opportunities may support a claim.

Importance: This case is useful for synthetic influencer impersonation and competing virtual-brand disputes.

Case 5. I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting [2020] SGCA 32

Subject: Confidential information and commercial exploitation

Facts:
The dispute concerned confidential business information and its alleged misuse following a commercial relationship.

Legal issue:
The Court considered the protection of confidential information and the requirements for establishing breach of confidence.

Judgment and principle:
The Court of Appeal clarified the approach to breach of confidence, including the significance of information having the necessary quality of confidence and being imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence.

Application to synthetic influencers:

An AI influencer's unpublished character-development files may contain confidential commercial information.

Private training datasets, advertising strategies and unreleased character designs may qualify for protection.

Former employees or contractors may face liability for unauthorized exploitation of confidential materials.

Commercial licensing negotiations may involve confidential revenue and audience information.

Importance: This case is important for protecting the confidential business infrastructure behind synthetic influencer enterprises.

Case 6. RecordTV Pte Ltd v MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd [2010] SGCA 43

Subject: Digital technology and copyright infringement

Facts:
The dispute involved an online television recording service that enabled users to record television programmes remotely.

Legal issue:
Whether the service provider was responsible for copyright infringement through its technological arrangements.

Judgment and principle:
The Court of Appeal examined the nature of the service, the role of users and the legal meaning of authorization in copyright infringement.

Application to synthetic influencers:

Platforms hosting synthetic influencer content may face copyright disputes.

Developers and operators must consider whether their conduct amounts to authorization of infringing reproduction or communication.

Automated distribution does not automatically establish liability.

The precise role of the platform, user and service provider must be examined.

Importance: This case provides useful guidance for disputes involving AI influencer platforms and digital-content distribution.

Case 7. Hai Tong Co (Pte) Ltd v Ventree Singapore Pte Ltd [2013] 2 SLR 94

Subject: Advertising, endorsement and passing off

Facts:
The dispute involved the commercial use of a model's image in advertising and claims arising from alleged misleading association.

Legal issue:
The Court considered whether the use of a person's image and commercial presentation could create actionable misrepresentation.

Judgment and principle:
The Court of Appeal addressed the relationship between goodwill, advertising presentation, consumer perception and passing off.

Application to synthetic influencers:

A real model's image cannot simply be treated as freely available commercial material.

An AI-generated avatar resembling a real model may create questions of unauthorized commercial association.

Advertisers should distinguish between fictional character promotion and the reproduction of identifiable human characteristics.

Evidence concerning consumer perception is important.

Importance: This case provides a useful analogy for synthetic influencer endorsements based on human appearance and commercial identity.

Case 8. Chiam See Tong v Xin Zhang Jiang Restaurant [1995] 1 SLR(R) 856

Subject: Unauthorized use of a person's photograph and reputational harm

Facts:
The litigation involved the unauthorized commercial use of a politician's photograph.

Legal issue:
The dispute concerned whether the use of the photograph gave rise to actionable reputational harm.

Judgment and principle:
The case illustrates the potential relevance of defamation law when an individual's image is used in a misleading or damaging commercial context.

Application to synthetic influencers:

A synthetic influencer resembling an identifiable person may cause reputational injury.

False representations concerning endorsement or association may create legal exposure.

A claimant may consider defamation where the publication carries a defamatory meaning.

The case does not establish a general proprietary right over a person's image.

Importance: It demonstrates why identity-related disputes must be distinguished from ordinary copyright ownership disputes.

Case 9. Hanis Hussey v Integrated Information Pte Ltd [1998] SGHC 219

Subject: Commercial use of photographs and personal reputation

Facts:
The dispute concerned the use of a fashion model's photograph in a commercial context without proper authorization.

Legal issue:
The case involved the legal consequences of unauthorized photographic use and the associated reputational implications.

Judgment and principle:
The litigation is relevant to the potential application of defamation principles where an individual's photograph is used in a misleading or damaging setting.

Application to synthetic influencers:

An AI-generated virtual model may create disputes when it reproduces an identifiable person's appearance.

Commercial exploitation may create reputational harm if the content suggests inappropriate associations.

The claimant must establish the relevant elements of the applicable cause of action.

Unauthorized image use does not automatically create an independent right to claim all profits earned by the user.

Importance: This authority helps distinguish personal reputation claims from ownership of synthetic character assets.

5. Major categories of civil claims

5.1 Unauthorized commercialization of synthetic influencer identity

This claim arises when another business commercially exploits a synthetic influencer's identity without authorization.

Examples:

Copying the influencer's name and appearance.

Creating a duplicate account to obtain sponsorships.

Selling products using the original influencer's identity.

Reproducing promotional videos without permission.

Misrepresenting an independent synthetic character as an authorized franchise.

Potential legal grounds:

Trade mark infringement.

Passing off.

Copyright infringement.

Breach of contract.

Breach of confidence, where applicable.

The claimant must identify the specific legal right infringed. There is no automatic exclusive ownership over a general fictional personality concept.

5.2 Synthetic influencer revenue-sharing disputes

These disputes arise when multiple parties contribute to developing and monetizing a virtual influencer.

For example, a developer creates the AI system, a designer develops the avatar, and an agency obtains advertising contracts.

Disputes may concern:

Ownership of sponsorship income.

Allocation of advertising revenue.

Affiliate marketing commissions.

Subscription earnings.

Merchandise profits.

Licensing fees.

Unpaid contractual royalties.

Applicable principles:

Contractual interpretation, breach of contract, debt recovery and, where appropriate, restitutionary remedies may apply.

A party claiming revenue must establish its contractual entitlement or another recognised legal basis for recovery.

5.3 Unauthorized use of human likeness in synthetic influencers

A synthetic influencer may be created using another person's face, voice, photographs or behavioural characteristics.

This creates two separate legal questions:

Does the real person have a legally actionable claim concerning the unauthorized use of their identity?

Does the synthetic influencer's creator own any original creative material incorporated into the avatar?

Potential claims include:

Passing off through false endorsement.

Defamation where the publication is defamatory.

Copyright infringement involving protected photographs or recordings.

PDPA-related claims.

Breach of confidence.

Contractual claims arising from unauthorized use.

A real person does not automatically own every AI-generated image resembling them. Similarly, the synthetic influencer's developer does not automatically obtain permission to commercially exploit another person's identity.

5.4 Copyright ownership disputes

These disputes concern the ownership of creative elements used in virtual influencer businesses.

For example, an advertising agency may claim ownership over the influencer's appearance while the independent designer argues that the original character artwork belongs to them.

The court may need to consider:

Who created the original artwork?

Whether the work meets copyright originality requirements.

Whether the creator was an employee or independent contractor.

Whether copyright was assigned.

Whether the licensing agreement permits commercial exploitation.

Whether the disputed material was independently generated by AI.

Copyright protection attaches to qualifying expression, not the abstract idea of a virtual influencer.

5.5 Digital influencer impersonation claims

Impersonation may involve a third party creating a duplicate synthetic influencer account and misleading followers or commercial partners.

Possible consequences include:

Loss of advertising contracts.

Misappropriation of sponsorship opportunities.

Consumer confusion.

Reputational damage.

Unauthorized access to commercial accounts.

Diversion of subscription revenue.

A claimant may pursue passing off, trade mark infringement, copyright infringement, defamation or contractual remedies depending on the circumstances.

5.6 Unjust enrichment and recovery of profits

A business may earn money through unauthorized use of a synthetic influencer's protected materials or commercial identity.

The claimant may seek:

Compensation for proven losses.

An account of profits where legally available.

Restitution where the elements of an applicable restitutionary claim are established.

Recovery of unpaid licensing fees.

Contractual damages.

However, unjust enrichment is not a general mechanism for recovering profits merely because another party benefited from using a similar virtual personality.

6. Rights and liabilities of different stakeholders

7. Important evidentiary requirements

A claimant seeking economic remedies should preserve evidence establishing ownership, authorization, commercial exploitation and financial loss.

Digital evidence should be preserved with appropriate metadata, timestamps and records of authenticity.

8. Remedies available under Singapore civil law

Depending on the cause of action, available remedies may include:

A. Injunctions

A court may restrain unauthorized use of protected character artwork, trade marks, confidential information or misleading commercial representations.

B. Damages

A successful claimant may seek compensation for legally recoverable loss.

C. Account of profits

Where available under the relevant cause of action, the claimant may seek an account of profits attributable to the wrongful conduct.

D. Contractual compensation

A party may recover damages for breach of an influencer licensing or revenue-sharing agreement.

E. Delivery up or disposal

Appropriate orders may be available concerning infringing materials.

F. Declaratory relief

The court may determine the parties' rights and obligations concerning ownership, licensing or contractual entitlements.

G. Settlement and alternative dispute resolution

Commercial parties may use mediation or arbitration where appropriate and contractually available.

9. Major legal challenges in Singapore

9.1 Absence of a dedicated synthetic influencer ownership regime

Singapore does not currently recognise a synthetic influencer as an independent legal person capable of owning property or entering contracts in its own name.

Consequently, ownership must generally be established through identifiable individuals or legal entities.

9.2 Difficulty identifying copyright authorship

AI-generated characters may involve multiple contributors, including prompt engineers, designers, developers and advertising agencies.

Determining which contributions satisfy copyright requirements can be difficult. Singapore's approach requires human authorship for authorial works.

Isomer User Content+1

9.3 Lack of a comprehensive personality right

Singapore does not provide a general standalone right of publicity equivalent to certain foreign jurisdictions.

Passing off may protect commercial goodwill against misleading representations, but it does not create a universal right to control every commercial use of someone's likeness.

The Singapore Government has specifically identified passing off as a possible avenue where digital replicas create misleading representations.

Ministry of Law+1

9.4 Valuation of synthetic influencer assets

Determining the economic value of a virtual influencer may require consideration of:

Advertising revenue.

Sponsorship history.

Audience engagement.

Brand recognition.

Licensing arrangements.

Merchandising opportunities.

Commercial exclusivity.

Reputation and market positioning.

There is no universally prescribed statutory valuation formula for synthetic influencer identities.

9.5 Cross-border exploitation

Singapore-based synthetic influencer businesses may operate internationally through global advertising platforms.

This creates jurisdictional disputes involving:

Foreign copyright ownership.

International licensing.

Cross-border digital impersonation.

Applicable law.

Foreign platform enforcement.

Recognition and enforcement of judgments.

10. Hypothetical Singapore legal dispute

Consider the following example.

A Singapore technology company creates a virtual influencer called Luna Digital. The company hires an independent designer, an AI developer and a marketing agency.

The influencer subsequently attracts 500,000 followers and obtains substantial sponsorship revenue.

A dispute develops when:

The designer claims ownership of the original character artwork.

The AI developer claims that the company cannot commercially exploit the AI-generated outputs.

The marketing agency demands a share of sponsorship revenue.

A competing company creates an almost identical virtual influencer.

The competing company uses Luna Digital's name in advertising without authorization.

Possible legal analysis:

The court would examine the individual legal rights, contractual documents and evidence rather than automatically treating Luna Digital as a single indivisible item of property.

11. Recommendations for strengthening Singapore's legal framework

Singapore could consider the following reforms.

1. Synthetic character commercial ownership framework

Introduce clearer rules for identifying ownership of commercially developed virtual personalities.

2. AI-assisted authorship guidelines

Clarify the degree of human creative contribution necessary to establish copyright protection.

3. Digital identity protection

Develop stronger remedies against unauthorized commercial digital replicas of identifiable individuals.

4. Standardized influencer licensing agreements

Encourage contractual provisions dealing with ownership, exclusivity, licensing, royalties and termination.

5. Synthetic endorsement disclosure

Develop clearer advertising standards for distinguishing fictional AI personalities from real human endorsers.

6. Revenue transparency

Encourage transparent accounting and contractual reporting of sponsorship and licensing revenue.

7. Dispute resolution mechanisms

Promote specialist mediation and arbitration for complex digital identity and influencer commercialization disputes.

12. Summary of important case laws

Legal qualification: These nine cases provide relevant analogies and established legal principles. They should not be represented as nine direct judgments on synthetic influencer economic rights. Singapore has not established a dedicated body of reported case law recognizing an independent proprietary right in synthetic influencer identities.

13. Conclusion

Civil Law and Synthetic Influencer Economic Rights Claims in Singapore represent an emerging area involving intellectual property, commercial contracts, digital identity, consumer protection and technological innovation.

The principal legal conclusion is that a synthetic influencer can have substantial commercial value without necessarily constituting an independently protected legal property right.

Singapore's existing legal framework provides several avenues for protecting the commercial interests associated with virtual influencers:

Copyright protects qualifying original creative expression.

Trade mark law protects registered commercial identifiers.

Passing off protects established goodwill against actionable misrepresentation.

Contract law protects licensing and revenue-sharing arrangements.

Confidentiality law protects qualifying confidential commercial information.

Data protection and other applicable civil laws address certain forms of unauthorized personal-data exploitation and identity misuse.

The central challenge for Singapore is to establish a clearer distinction between ownership of a synthetic character, ownership of its underlying creative materials, commercial rights to exploit its identity and the rights of real individuals whose identities may have been reproduced.

Ultimately, a coherent legal framework should protect creators, developers, investors, advertisers and identifiable individuals while allowing responsible innovation in Singapore's growing digital economy.

Research note: This is an academic legal analysis, not a determination of liability in a particular dispute. It distinguishes existing Singapore law from proposed legal reforms.