When Animals Become Assets

Animals have always held an important place in human life. They appear in stories, political symbols, sports mascots, and, most prominently today, in commercial advertising. Modern companies harness animal imagery to help sell products by creating emotional attachment and brand recognition. While the businesses enjoy huge financial gains from these advertisements, the species represented often face declining populations, shrinking habitats, and limited support. This imbalance prompts questions about whether or not there should exist a legal framework that requires companies to contribute to wildlife preservation when they benefit from their commercial imagery. While seemingly far-fetched, extending the right of publicity to animals could help in the prevention of their commercial exploitation without accountability to support conservation. 

Currently, U.S. law treats the use of animal imagery as harmless speech rather than as an activity with real world consequences. Environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA), regulate physical interactions with animals, including hunting, trafficking, habitat destruction, or the sale of animal parts. However, these laws do not address commercial exploitation of an animal’s identity or symbolism. Essentially, as long as no physical harm occurs, companies can freely use images of endangered species without accountability or requirement to support conservation. This legal gap becomes increasingly troubling when considering how visually driven advertising is, while species extinction will only continue to accelerate. Marketing research consistently demonstrates that animals increase consumer trust, emotional engagement, and brand memorability. A 2020 advertising study found that consumers were significantly more likely to recall an advertisement if it featured an animal, even if the animal had nothing to do with the product. Big cats, like tigers and leopards, for example, are often used to signal sports and automotive logos. In every case, the company is using the symbolism of the species without paying for it. 

Simultaneously, many of these species face alarming levels of endangerment. The World Wildlife Fund reports rapid population declines among charismatic creatures that appear in marketing most often: tigers, elephants, and several species of bears. When companies use endangered species as branding tools, they may unintentionally reinforce the perception that these animals are plentiful, familiar, and safe, even as the opposite is true. Conservation scientists warn that the presence of endangered animals in media, especially in advertisements, provokes the false abundance effect: the idea that humankind has unlimited resources. People can assume a species is thriving if they see it everywhere in commercials and on packaging. This effect weakened public support for urgent conservation efforts. 

Some companies voluntarily contribute to conservation, but the overall participation rate is low and inconsistent. For example, a few sports teams with animal mascots have launched small donation programs to support the species they represent. The Tigers United University Consortium, which includes universities like LSU and Clemson, was formed to help save wild tigers from extinction through conservation and fighting wildlife crime. However, many initiatives are often temporary, unregulated, and primarily used as public relations tools rather than long-term commitments. In other words, voluntary programs create publicity benefits but rarely produce sustained conservation outcomes. 

Recognizing these issues, some legal scholars have explored the possibility of borrowing ideas from the “right of publicity,” a doctrine that gives individuals control over the commercial use of their name, voice, or likeness. Under this doctrine, a company cannot use a celebrity's image without permission. Scholars argue that endangered species could be treated similarily–not because animals are legal persons, but because their likeness carries social and economic value that companies currently exploit without compensation. The proposal is that companies wishing to use the image of an endangered species in advertisements would need to pay a small fee or acquire a license, with the revenue directed specifically toward conservation. 

The right of publicity is not the only possible approach to bind advertising practices to conservation responsibilities. One option would be to create a federal environmental royalty, similar to how musicians earn royalties when their songs are used commercially. If a company uses the imagery of endangered species on packaging, logos, or commercials, then a small royalty would be directed to a federal conservation fund. This method avoids complicated licensing negotiations and ensures consistent funding across industries. Even a small royalty, when multiplied across major companies, could produce millions of dollars annually for habitat protection and species recovery programs.  However, this may face opposition from industries resistant to additional fees. Another approach could be a targeted tax, similar to existing taxes on environmentally impactful activities such as carbon emissions and plastic production. This model relies on the principle that corporations should contribute to environmental conservation when their marketing strategy depends on the cultural value of wildlife. However, this tax could be criticized as a broad government levy. A more regulatory approach would require companies that use endangered species imagery to sponsor certified conservation programs. Under this system, a business using an endangered animal in its branding would need to partner with an approved conservation organization, contribute a defined amount annually, and provide transparency about how the money is used. Sponsorship requirements provide transparency but could burden small businesses. Despite differences, these models share one core idea, and that is that commercial benefit should be connected to conservation responsibility. 

Opponents of new regulations might argue that such measures restrict free expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment. However, courts have long upheld taxes and fees on commercial speech as long as they serve a legitimate public interest. For example, cigarette advertisements have long been subject to special regulations because of public health concerns, and taxes on alcohol have been upheld in several states. A wildlife advertising fee would not prohibit companies from using animal imagery, it would merely link that use to species protection. 

Critics claim that requiring companies to pay for using animal imagery could create administrative challenges. Critics may worry that distinguishing between the level of endangerment between animal species would be difficult. However, the ESA already maintains updated lists of threatened and endangered species. Federal agencies also regularly classify species’ risk levels. A final concern is whether such a system would truly produce meaningful conservation outcomes. Conservation funding must be applied effectively to scientific research, habit restoration, and anti-poaching measures. Conservation organizations already comply with accountability measures such as transparent requirements and annual reportings when receiving federal grants, so extending these standards to advertising-generated funding would not be difficult. Federal funds are primarily directed to their intended area through a system of grants, oversight, and tracking mechanisms, which would all go to ensure the money collected would go to the right places. 

As long as advertising remains visually driven and dependent on emotional imagery, companies will continue to rely on wildlife symbolism to sell products. The legal system should recognize their reality and create structures that reflect the real-world ecological costs of commercial imagery. Companies already pay for music rights, design rights, and trademark rights. It is not unreasonable to expect that they also contribute to protecting the species whose image they use to capture public attention. Establishing accountability through law would mark an important step towards aligning commercial culture with sustainability.