ILCS » Chapter 765 · Act 1075
Illinois Compiled Statutes

765 ILCS 1075/35 (2026)

Applicability

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(765 ILCS 1075/35)
    Sec. 35. Applicability.
    (a) This Act applies to acts or events that take place after the effective date of this Act.
    (b) Subsections (a) and (c) of Section 30 do not apply to the following:
        (1) use of an individual's identity in an attempt to
    
portray, describe, or impersonate that individual in a live performance, a single and original work of fine art, play, book, article, musical work, film, radio, television, or other audio, visual, or audio-visual work, provided that the performance, work, play, book, article, or film does not constitute in and of itself a commercial advertisement for a product, merchandise, goods, or services;
        (2) use of an individual's identity for
    
non-commercial purposes, including any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign;
        (3) use of an individual's name in truthfully
    
identifying the person as the author of a particular work or program or the performer in a particular performance;
        (4) promotional materials, advertisements, or
    
commercial announcements for a use described under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection; or
        (5) use of photographs, videotapes, and images by a
    
person, firm, or corporation practicing the profession of photography ("professional photographer") to exhibit in or about the professional photographer's place of business or portfolio, specimens of the professional photographer's work, unless the exhibition is continued by the professional photographer after written notice objecting to the exhibition has been given by the individual portrayed.
    (c) Subsections (b) and (c) of Section 30 do not apply to the use of identity or digital replicas in the following:
        (1) news, public affairs, or a sports broadcast or
    
account, or any political campaign;
        (2) for a purpose that has political, public
    
interest, educational, or newsworthy value, unless use of the audiovisual digital replica is intended to create, and does create, the false impression to a reasonable viewer or listener that the work is an authentic recording in which the individual participated;
        (3) use of a digital replica to depict the individual
    
in a documentary, docudrama, or historical or biographical audiovisual work, or any other representation of the individual as such individual, regardless of the degree of fictionalization, unless the use of the audiovisual digital replica creates the false impression to a reasonable viewer or listener that the digital replica is an authentic recording or that the individual participated in the work, including, for example, in a live performance of a musical work an individual did not participate in;
        (4) use of digital replica for the purposes of
    
comment, criticism, scholarship, satire, or parody; or
        (5) promotional materials, advertisements, or
    
commercial announcements for a use described in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4).
    (d) The provisions of this amendatory Act of the 103rd General Assembly do not apply to any action filed before, nor to any action pending on, its effective date.
(Source: P.A. 103-836, eff. 1-1-25.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Flentye v. Kathrein, 485 F. Supp. 2d 903 (N.D. Ill. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Flentye v. Kathrein, 485 F. Supp. 2d 903 (N.D. Ill. 2007). “) The Right to Publicity Act does not apply to the “use of an individual’s identity for noncommercial purposes, including any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign,” 765 ILCS 1075/35(b)(2). However, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are…”
Schivarelli v. CBS, INC., 776 N.E.2d 693 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “) 765 ILCS 1075/35 (b)(2),(b)(4) (West 1998).”
Johannes Martin v. Wendy's Int'l, Inc., 714 F. App'x 590 (7th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “And the judge decided that Martin’s false-advertising claim failed because the phrase “record-breaking” was non-actionable puffery.”
Trannel v. Prairie Ridge Media, Inc., 2013 IL App (2d) 120725 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “” 765 ILCS 1075/35(b)(2) (West 2010). “News” is a “report of a -7- recent event: new information: fresh tidings.”
Best v. Berard, 776 F. Supp. 2d 752 (N.D. Ill. 2011). “” 765 ILCS 1075/35(b)(2). Best contends that defendants violated IRPA by using her identity without her consent for a commercial purpose, namely, the sale of the Female Forces television program.”
Brown v. ACMI Pop Div., 873 N.E.2d 954 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “Lethem, Being James Brown, Rolling Stone, June 29, 2006, at 5, 55-64, 80-81.”
Fischer v. Instant Checkmate LLC. (N.D. Ill. 2020). · cites it 6× “” 765 ILCS 1075/35(b)(1) (emphasis added). Instant Checkmate argues that this exclusion applies “[b]ecause [its] ‘background reports’ are effectively an online book or encyclopedia about people.”
Lukis v. Whitepages Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2020). · cites it 6× “” 765 ILCS 1075/35(b)(1) (emphasis added). Instant Checkmate argues that this exclusion applies “[b]ecause [its] ‘background reports’ are effectively an online book or encyclopedia about people.”
Fischer v. Instant Checkmate LLC. (N.D. Ill. 2020). · cites it 6× “The IRPA exempts five categories of uses, see 765 ILCS 1075/35(b), three of which are relevant here.”
Lukis v. Whitepages Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2020). · cites it 6× “The IRPA exempts five categories of uses, see 765 ILCS 1075/35(b), three of which are relevant here.”
Love v. Simmons (N.D. Ill. 2024). · cites it 6× “” See 765 ILCS 1075/35(b)(1). That’s the so-called “audio-visual work” exemption.”
Schivarelli v. CBS, Inc., 333 Ill. App. 3d 755 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “) 765 ILCS 1075/35(b)(2), (b)(4) (West 1998).”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— 765 ILCS 1075/35(b) — 2 cases
Fischer v. Instant Checkmate LLC. (N.D. Ill. 2020). “The IRPA exempts five categories of uses, see 765 ILCS 1075/35(b), three of which are relevant here.”
Lukis v. Whitepages Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2020). “The IRPA exempts five categories of uses, see 765 ILCS 1075/35(b), three of which are relevant here.”
— 765 ILCS 1075/35(b)(1) — 9 cases
Fischer v. Instant Checkmate LLC. (N.D. Ill. 2020). “” 765 ILCS 1075/35(b)(1) (emphasis added). Instant Checkmate argues that this exclusion applies “[b]ecause [its] ‘background reports’ are effectively an online book or encyclopedia about people.”
Lukis v. Whitepages Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2020). “” 765 ILCS 1075/35(b)(1) (emphasis added). Instant Checkmate argues that this exclusion applies “[b]ecause [its] ‘background reports’ are effectively an online book or encyclopedia about people.”
Bonilla v. Ancestry.Com Operations, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2021).
Love v. Simmons (N.D. Ill. 2024). “” See 765 ILCS 1075/35(b)(1). That’s the so-called “audio-visual work” exemption.”
Fischer v. Instant Checkmate LLC. (N.D. Ill. 2020). “The IRPA exempts five categories of uses, see 765 ILCS 1075/35(b), three of which are relevant here.”
— 765 ILCS 1075/35(b)(2) — 17 cases
Flentye v. Kathrein, 485 F. Supp. 2d 903 (N.D. Ill. 2007). “) The Right to Publicity Act does not apply to the “use of an individual’s identity for noncommercial purposes, including any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign,” 765 ILCS 1075/35(b)(2). However, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are…”
Trannel v. Prairie Ridge Media, Inc., 2013 IL App (2d) 120725 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “” 765 ILCS 1075/35(b)(2) (West 2010). “News” is a “report of a -7- recent event: new information: fresh tidings.”
Best v. Berard, 776 F. Supp. 2d 752 (N.D. Ill. 2011). “” 765 ILCS 1075/35(b)(2). Best contends that defendants violated IRPA by using her identity without her consent for a commercial purpose, namely, the sale of the Female Forces television program.”
Brown v. ACMI Pop Div., 873 N.E.2d 954 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “Lethem, Being James Brown, Rolling Stone, June 29, 2006, at 5, 55-64, 80-81.”
Love v. Simmons (N.D. Ill. 2024). “” See 765 ILCS 1075/35(b)(1). That’s the so-called “audio-visual work” exemption.”
— 765 ILCS 1075/35(b)(3) — 2 cases
Johannes Martin v. Wendy's Int'l, Inc., 714 F. App'x 590 (7th Cir. 2018). “And the judge decided that Martin’s false-advertising claim failed because the phrase “record-breaking” was non-actionable puffery.”
Johannes Martin v. Wendy's Int'l, Inc. (7th Cir. 2018).
— 765 ILCS 1075/35(b)(4) — 4 cases
Fischer v. Instant Checkmate LLC. (N.D. Ill. 2020). “” 765 ILCS 1075/35(b)(1) (emphasis added). Instant Checkmate argues that this exclusion applies “[b]ecause [its] ‘background reports’ are effectively an online book or encyclopedia about people.”
Lukis v. Whitepages Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2020). “” 765 ILCS 1075/35(b)(1) (emphasis added). Instant Checkmate argues that this exclusion applies “[b]ecause [its] ‘background reports’ are effectively an online book or encyclopedia about people.”
Fischer v. Instant Checkmate LLC. (N.D. Ill. 2020). “The IRPA exempts five categories of uses, see 765 ILCS 1075/35(b), three of which are relevant here.”
Lukis v. Whitepages Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2020). “The IRPA exempts five categories of uses, see 765 ILCS 1075/35(b), three of which are relevant here.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.