Reservoir's Strayhorn and Feliciano deals put an artist's name and likeness in the catalogue

Reservoir Media made two catalogue deals in three days this week, and the songs were not the most interesting part of either. On 19 Oct it announced that it had acquired the publishing catalogue of Billy Strayhorn, the composer of "Take the 'A' Train" and "Lush Life", and added that it "will participate in Strayhorn's name, image, and likeness rights". On 21 Oct it announced a deal for José Feliciano's recorded music catalogue, which includes non-exclusive rights to his name, image and likeness.

Name, image and likeness (NIL) used to be the side of a catalogue deal that covered merchandise and the odd documentary. Now it is part of the headline. Neither press release mentions AI. Even so, the timing tells you why an artist's name, face and voice are worth more to a catalogue owner in 2026 than they were five years ago.

What did Reservoir actually buy?

Strayhorn. He was born in 1915, died in 1967 and spent three decades working with Duke Ellington, per Reservoir. The release names "Take the 'A' Train", "Lush Life", "Chelsea Bridge" and "Satin Doll". The NIL participation is with his estate, Billy Strayhorn Songs, Inc., which Reservoir has worked with since 2014. No financial terms were given.

The release does not say what changed. Music Business Worldwide points out that Reservoir's own annual report lists Strayhorn's catalogue among those it gained when it bought First State Media Group in 2014. The announcement doesn't explain how the rights Reservoir held before differ from what it holds now. Whatever the exact change, Reservoir now holds both the publishing and a share of the identity.

Feliciano. This one is a recorded-music deal, and the release doesn't mention his publishing. It names "Feliz Navidad", his 1968 recording of The Doors' "Light My Fire" and the theme to Chico and the Man. MBW reports that neither the terms nor the specific recordings included were disclosed. Chief executive Golnar Khosrowshahi framed it as part of Reservoir's push into Latin music this year. Feliciano had a broker from MPA Advisors, Jay Stollman Entertainment and a lawyer on his side, Music Week notes. Our guess is that the "non-exclusive" in his NIL grant is the kind of term that advisers fight for.

Is this a pattern?

Yes, and Reservoir has said so. When it bought into Miles Davis's catalogue in 2025, the company partnered with the Davis estate on name and likeness. President Rell Lafargue told MBW that this put the company "100% squarely in the Miles Davis business". He listed films, ads, immersive experiences and symphonic tours as ways to reach younger listeners. He also said such deals are rarely available, and when they are, "it must be an icon."

So that is at least three announced NIL deals in about a year: the Davis estate in 2025 and two more this week. The common thread is iconic, mostly older catalogues where the person behind the songs is a brand in their own right.

Why does likeness matter more now?

AI is the reason, even if Reservoir hasn't said so. A voice model or an avatar needs no master and no composition to sound like someone. It needs their identity, and the law is moving to make identity a property right.

Tennessee's ELVIS Act, signed in March 2024, added voice to the state's existing protection for name, image and likeness, aimed specifically at generative AI cloning. Federally, the NO FAKES Act is stalled: Sen. Ted Cruz blocked a fast-track vote on 30 Sep, Raw Story reported (our coverage). Its reported text is worth reading with these deals in mind. As we read it:

• The right applies whether a person died before or after the law is enacted. After death it can be transferred or licensed by executors, heirs, assignees and licensees, in writing.
• After death it lasts 10 years. The first 5-year extension needs the right holder to show "active and authorized public use" of the voice or likeness in the 2 years before the 10 years run out; each later 5-year renewal needs "authorized public use" in the 2 years before that period ends. It stops at 70 years after death at the latest.
• What counts as use is broad: "The commercial availability of a sound recording or audiovisual work in which the voice or visual likeness of an individual is readily identifiable shall constitute active and authorized public use" of that voice or likeness, for the purposes of that renewal test (§2(b)(2)(A)(iv)(II)).
• For anyone who died at least 10 years before enactment, as Strayhorn did, the right holder may voluntarily register within 90 days after the law takes effect, if it can show authorised public use in the 2 years before enactment.
• For living people, a licence is valid only up to 10 years.

If the bill passes in that form, an estate keeps its federal right over a digital replica by showing the identity is in authorised public use. That bar is lower than it first looks. A recording on sale in which the person's voice is readily identifiable counts, so an estate whose records stay in print may qualify without any commercial partner at all. Where a partner helps is at the edges: a composer known mainly through other people's recordings, a performer whose records have gone out of print, and the registration paperwork that has to be filed on time.

Reservoir is fighting AI on a separate front. The same day as the Feliciano announcement, it sued Suno and Anthropic. One example in the Suno complaint is a prompt for a "Miles Davis like Blues track", which Reservoir calls an unlicensed derivative of Davis's music. That is a copyright argument. NIL gives a catalogue owner a second argument for the cases copyright struggles with: a sound-alike that copies no notes but trades on a name or a voice. Our Johnny Cash estate coverage shows that argument being tested even with a human soundalike.

What we think

NIL participation is an option on a right that doesn't fully exist yet, and Reservoir is buying it early. Under the NO FAKES text, the protection goes to identities in authorised public use, and records on sale go a long way to proving that. So the case for bringing in a partner is less about keeping the right alive and more about exploiting it: films, campaigns, immersive shows and, one day, licensed AI uses. That is a fair reason for an estate to sign. It is also a reason for estates to read the terms closely, because the partner is buying a share of the upside, not a lifeline.

Three things we would want to know, and neither release tells us:

1. Who decides on a voice model or an avatar? Strayhorn's estate praised Reservoir as a partner that valued "our opinions, our ideas and our feelings". That is a good sign. It is not a contractual veto. An estate should hold an explicit approval right over any synthetic voice, digital performance or likeness built by AI, separate from approvals on merchandise and ads.
2. Where does the money go? As we argued in our Suno coverage, training-licence money reaches writers only through their existing contracts. Likeness income has the same problem. If an AI "Strayhorn" ever earns money, the split should be set now.
3. Who will own the partner later? Reservoir is a listed company that received rival take-private proposals this year, MBW reports. Rights to a likeness can pass to a new owner with the rest of the company, and the new owner may care less about the family's feelings.

Feliciano's deal is the better model for living artists. A non-exclusive grant leaves him free to license his likeness elsewhere and keeps a catalogue owner from becoming the sole gatekeeper of his identity. For working musicians the lesson is cheaper than a broker: when a catalogue deal, label deal or publishing deal asks for your name, image and likeness, keep it non-exclusive and time-limited, and treat AI voice and avatar uses as a separate grant with its own price. The estates of great but less famous players, sidemen and session singers are a different story, though not the one we first assumed. Under the reported text, a session singer whose voice is readily identifiable on records still on sale may keep a federal right alive without any commercial partner; an instrumentalist who never sang and never appeared on film has less to point to. What these estates are more likely to lack is the money and attention to register in time and to enforce the right, so the gap between famous and forgotten estates may show up in enforcement rather than in who qualifies.