LeBron James Just Sent Cease-and-Desist Letters to the Meme Machine.
That Doesn’t Mean the Law Is Ready.
LeBron James isn’t suing over deepfake porn. He’s not chasing a political smear. He’s not targeting AI fraud.
He’s going after the memes.
Specifically: viral, AI-generated videos that depict him pregnant, homeless, kneeling with his tongue out, or silently present during surreal prison assaults. “Brainrot AI” content. Engineered absurdity designed to juice engagement—not truth.
His lawyers sent cease-and-desist letters. Instagram banned meme accounts. FlickUp — the AI tool hosting a “LeBron model” — deleted every real-person likeness in its system.
It looks like a win. A boundary. A precedent.
Legally? It’s not.
Because the truth is: the law doesn’t actually protect him here. Not really.
Let’s talk about why.
⸻
The Right of Publicity Is a Patch, Not a Framework.
What LeBron’s team is asserting isn’t copyright. These videos weren’t ripped from real footage. They’re synthetic — generated from models trained on public images of his face.
So they’re asserting his right of publicity: the idea that you have legal control over the commercial use of your name, image, or likeness.
It sounds strong. But it’s state-by-state. No federal statute. No uniform enforcement. And most importantly: no clear test for AI-generated impersonation that’s not explicitly commercial or false.
California has Civil Code §3344. New York has its version. But they weren’t written for this. They weren’t written for probabilistic, diffusion-based hallucinations of famous people doing weird shit on Instagram.
And courts are still figuring out whether an AI-generated video of you — not copied, not endorsed, not sold — even counts as a “use” of your likeness in the legal sense.
So is it unauthorized? Maybe.
Is it illegal? Not yet.
⸻
Parody Is Still Protected. Even If It’s AI-Generated Garbage.
Here’s the harder truth:
You don’t have a legal right not to be made fun of. Not even if the joke is generated by a model trained on your face.
Parody is protected. Absurdity is protected. Even “low-effort, degenerative, uncanny slop” is protected if it’s not making provably false claims or crossing into defamation, false endorsement, or commercial misuse.
That’s why this isn’t a clean right-of-publicity case. It’s meme culture run through a GPU. It’s LeBron James as a character in an unlicensed TikTok fever dream.
And unless the content explicitly suggests that he endorsed it—or it causes measurable economic harm—he’s probably not getting to summary judgment.
⸻
If You Want Real Protection, You Have to Copyright the Character.
There is one legal move that might actually work here. But it’s not the one being tried.
LeBron isn’t just a person. He’s a brand. A stylized public persona. And if that persona were treated as a protectable character—like courts have done for Batman, James Bond, or even Ali G—it could trigger a different legal regime entirely: copyright law.
Courts have long held that distinctive fictional characters can be copyrighted—even if they’re inspired by real people. If a persona is consistently expressed across multiple media (broadcast, print, commercials, interviews, licensing), and has recognizable traits beyond generic identity, it may qualify as a “copyrightable character.”
And here’s why that matters:
If LeBron’s public-facing persona were copyrighted as a character, those AI-generated videos could potentially infringe that copyright. Not just violate his publicity rights—violate his IP.
If LeBron had already copyrighted his stylized persona as a character, these memes wouldn’t just be trolling—they’d potentially be infringement. Copyright law protects expressive characters, not just real names or faces. That means AI-generated content that replicates those expressive traits could trigger actual legal consequences, not just vibes.
Because in that framework, it’s not just someone using his likeness. It’s someone reproducing a protected creative expression that belongs to him.
Nobody has done this successfully for a real person at scale. Not yet. But someone will.
Until then, these lawsuits aren’t enforcement. They’re signals. Warnings. Legal improvisation in a system that hasn’t caught up.
⸻
What Actually Happened: Platform Compliance, Not Legal Victory.
FlickUp took down its “realistic people” models. Not because the law made them. But because LeBron’s lawyers scared them.
That’s not precedent. That’s platform governance under pressure.
Instagram deleted meme accounts. Not because the content was illegal. But because it was reputationally risky and probably violated vague impersonation or harassment policies.
In other words:
This was a vibes-based win. Not a doctrinal one.
⸻
This Isn’t a Legal Precedent. It’s a Legal Stress Test.
LeBron is doing what celebrities will increasingly try:
Sending legal signals to constrain AI outputs using a mix of copyright threats, publicity claims, and pressure campaigns.
But none of those tools are fully built for this. Not yet.
The Copyright Office says AI-assisted works aren’t protectable.
The right of publicity isn’t federal, and it breaks under parody.
Fair use still protects even the worst content if it’s transformative.
And courts haven’t decided what AI “impersonation” even is.
So what LeBron’s doing is smart. Necessary. Symbolically powerful.
But it’s not enforcement.
It’s improvisation.
And unless something changes—statutorily, judicially, or structurally—it’s not enough.
⸻
Final Thought: The Law Can’t Stop the Meme Machine. Yet.
You can’t stop people from making fun of you.
Even if they’re doing it with AI.
Even if it’s low-effort, uncanny, or humiliating.
The law doesn’t protect your dignity. It protects your property.
And unless you’ve copyrighted your character, trademarked your name, or proven economic harm—you don’t own the meme version of you.
LeBron James tried. He forced a platform to blink.
But the real fix isn’t sending letters.
It’s building the legal architecture that can actually hold.
Until then, everyone is one viral prompt away from becoming training data.
Even you.
⸻
🤖 Subscribe to AnaGPT
Every week, I break down the latest legal in AI, tech, and law—minus the jargon. Whether you’re a founder, creator, or lawyer, this newsletter will help you stay two steps ahead of the lawsuits.
➡️ Forward this post to someone working on AI. They’ll thank you later.
➡️ Follow Ana on Instagram @anajuneja
➡️ Add Ana on LinkedIn @anajuneja