It is illegal to use a known individual in any piece of art that depicts an action that they might find objectionable or that promotes anything at all. "I've seen plenty of porn out there with lookalike models. Whether that model is a living breathing person or a virtual persona is irrelevant. If you don't identify the individual as the person it looks like, there's not a thing they can do. " You are NOT fine if you don't use their name - if the likeness is decent and a court declares that looking at the image leads the general public to believe it is that individual than it is a violation of their rights. Of course then, the celebrity can still sue you. If it looks realistic they will probably win. It is exploitation regardless of a stated name or not. This has actually gone to court several times (don't you wonder why commercials with celebrity look-alikes have to make that statement - even when it's just voice?) Tom Waits received $2 million in a settlement fro this with Frito Lay. Woody Allen won against video rental stores and Jackie O prevented her likeness from being used in modeling and fashion. Even for political satire it becomes questionable - political cartoonists have been sued over that as well. Read the link Cyberstretch provided most especially: "Is an individual's identity implied from the context, even when his/her name is not used? Is the individual's name, likeness, photograph, or description being used strictly for commercial purposes?" It specifically states "likeness" meaning that a name is not needed to identify. Take alook here: http://www.fake-detective.com/faqs/legal-1.htm to see a listing of law suits involving this subject Most specifically the Nancy Kerrigan case in which the image wasn't her but was doctored.

3-D Arena | Instagram | Facebook

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-Galileo