The Recent Frontier of Digital Identity: Trademarking the Human Voice
For decades, trademark law was the domain of corporate logos, slogans, and brand names. Though, a seismic shift is occurring as generative artificial intelligence makes it possible to clone a human voice or recreate a likeness with haunting precision. We are entering an era where celebrities are no longer just protecting their brands—they are trademarking their biological identities.
The most recent high-profile example is pop superstar Taylor Swift, who has filed three separate trademark applications in the United States. These filings target both her visual appearance and her auditory presence, signaling a strategic move to build a legal fortress around her identity in the age of AI.
Weaponizing Trademarks Against AI Impersonations
The motivation behind these filings is clear: the proliferation of AI-generated “deepfakes.” In recent years, Swift has been targeted by AI-generated content ranging from explicit images to deceptive political advertisements, including a fake ad where she appeared to urge voters to support Donald Trump.
While copyright law often protects a specific recording or a specific photo, trademark law offers a different kind of leverage. By registering her voice and image as trademarks, Swift is attempting to create a broader umbrella of protection that can be used to shut down unauthorized AI clones before they cause irreparable brand damage.
The ‘Confusingly Similar’ Standard: A Legal Game-Changer
The true power of this strategy lies in the legal standard of “confusing similarity.” According to trademark lawyer Josh Gerben, who first highlighted these applications, registering specific phrases allows a public figure to challenge more than just exact copies.
Swift has applied to trademark audio clips of herself saying, “Hey, it’s Taylor” and “Hey, it’s Taylor Swift.” These clips, originally recorded for Amazon Music and Spotify to promote her album The Life of a Showgirl, serve as “anchor points” for her legal team.
If a trademark is granted, Swift could potentially challenge AI imitations that are not identical but are “confusingly similar” to the registered audio. This moves the legal battle from “did this AI steal this exact file?” to “does this AI sound enough like Taylor Swift to mislead the public?”
A Growing Trend Among A-Listers
Swift is not the first to explore this path. Actor Matthew McConaughey became the first celebrity to utilize trademark rules to protect his voice and image from AI misuse earlier this year. This suggests a growing trend where the “Right of Publicity” is being augmented by intellectual property law.
As AI tools turn into more accessible to the general public, we can expect more high-net-worth individuals to follow suit. The goal is to create a legal precedent that treats a celebrity’s unique vocal timbre and physical appearance as proprietary assets, similar to how a company treats its logo.
Future Implications for the Entertainment Industry
This shift toward “identity trademarking” will likely force a reckoning in how AI models are trained. If a voice is trademarked, the act of training a model on that voice without permission could be viewed as a trademark violation, potentially leading to massive settlements or the forced deletion of specific model weights.
this may lead to a new economy of “licensed identities,” where AI companies pay royalties to celebrities to officially utilize their trademarked voices in synthetic media, turning a legal threat into a new revenue stream.
Frequently Asked Questions
While anyone can file an application, trademarks are generally granted to those who can prove the mark identifies a specific source of goods or services. For global stars like Taylor Swift, the connection between her voice and her “brand” is easily established.
Copyright protects a specific work (like a song recording). Trademark protects the brand identity. In the context of AI, a trademark can be used to stop an imitation that “confuses” the consumer, even if no specific copyrighted file was stolen.
Parody is often a protected form of speech, but the “confusingly similar” standard creates a grey area. If a parody is so realistic that It’s mistaken for the actual person, trademark holders may have more success in requesting its removal.
Join the Conversation
Do you think celebrities should be allowed to “own” their voice and likeness through trademarks, or does this stifle creativity and parody? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below or subscribe to our newsletter for more insights into the intersection of AI and law.
Related reading
