Key Takeaway: Taylor Swift’s recent trademark filings for her voice and likeness point to a growing trend among celebrities and high-profile individuals using federal trademark law—rather than relying solely on state-by-state publicity rights—to protect against AI-generated deepfakes and unauthorized digital replicas. Brand owners should review and assess whether their own identities or brand assets may be vulnerable to AI replication and consider an IP strategy that coordinates trademark, copyright, and state-law right of publicity.
Exploring Celebrity Rights, Trademark Law, and the NO-FAKES Act
Taylor Swift is not just a global music icon—she is also a trailblazer in business strategy. Swift recently made headlines by filing trademark applications to protect her voice and likeness, including two sound marks featuring her spoken voice and one visual mark depicting her performing onstage. These filings are designed to protect against the unauthorized use of her identity through artificial intelligence, reflecting growing concerns about AI-generated imitations and misuse in the entertainment industry. Her trademark strategy now encompasses not only phrases, lyrics, and her name, but also her vocal signature and image, signaling a multi-pronged effort to safeguard her creative works and personal brand in an era in which generating realistic video and audio with a person’s likeness or voice is just a few clicks away.
Rights of Publicity: What Are They?
Rights of publicity protect against misappropriation and allow individuals to control the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness. In the United States, these rights are governed by state laws, leading to a patchwork of protections. While states like California and New York have more well-developed publicity statutes, others offer minimal or no protection. This inconsistency makes it difficult for celebrities to enforce their rights nationwide, especially as digital content crosses state lines.
Trademark Law as a Federal Publicity Right
Both Swift and actor Matthew McConaughey have recently explored utilizing trademark law to supplement their rights of publicity. Swift’s recent filings to trademark her voice and likeness follow McConaughy’s successfully registering eight voice and likeness trademarks earlier this year. By trademarking their names, catchphrases, likenesses, and now vocal signatures, celebrities seek federal protection that goes beyond state boundaries. This strategy could fill gaps left by state laws where rights of publicity are not recognized, allowing celebrities to protect their identity nationwide. For example, if a celebrity appears in AI-generated videos, use of a trademarked likeness, gesture, or audio signature could generate potential trademark claims based on likelihood of confusion, false designation of origin, or dilution. The celebrity could then pursue federal trademark remedies, including injunctive relief, lost profits, and other monetary damages. As we explored in a recent post on the Prince estate’s trademark dispute over the name Apollonia, personal name trademarks raise complex questions about identity, legacy, and brand ownership, and these issues are amplified by the rise of AI.
Alternative Protection Methods: Copyrights for Performers
Copyright law offers another layer of protection for performers, but it has its limits. Copyrights safeguard original works like songs, performances, and recordings, but they do not cover a celebrity’s name, likeness, or voice as a standalone asset. Performers often rely on a mix of copyright and trademark registrations to protect their creative and personal brands. However, this can still leave gaps, especially in cases of impersonation, AI-generated content, or unauthorized image and voice use.
The NO-FAKES Act: What It Could Mean for AI and Publicity Rights
The NO-FAKES Act is a proposed federal law aimed at stopping unauthorized digital replicas of celebrities. If enacted into law, it would empower performers to control AI-generated likenesses and voice imitations. This legislation could fundamentally strengthen publicity rights, providing a single, nationwide standard. It would provide artists like Swift with a federal property right, allowing protection against unauthorized digital replicas. The NO-FAKES Act would create a civil cause of action, enabling the artist to seek monetary damages for each authorized replication. Currently, the legislation has been introduced in both the House and Senate and remains in committee.
What’s Next for Name, Image, and Likeness Protection
Swift’s trademark applications, together with the push for federal protection frameworks, highlight a broader issue: existing legal frameworks were not designed for a world in which likeness can be easily replicated and distributed globally with minimal effort.
For certain individuals, particularly high-profile celebrities and public figures whose voice, likeness, or persona are uniquely identifiable and commercially valuable, relying on traditional rights of publicity and waiting for the law to catch up may leave those individuals without adequate remedies if they become victims of AI-generated content. They should consider a strategic, forward-looking approach to trademark filings and coordinated IP portfolio management designed to create clear enforcement mechanisms from the outset.
While the NO-FAKES Act could become a meaningful tool to combat unauthorized use of likeness in AI-generated content, the legislation also underscores the limits of relying on a patchwork of doctrines. Absent a cohesive federal framework, enforcement will remain inconsistent and protection uneven. In the meantime, trademark tools may offer additional avenues of protection. For those whose identities are most likely to be targeted by AI-generated copying, registering trademarks related to likeness may become an essential part of brand protection.
Practical Guidance for Brand Owners
- Assess AI Replication Risk. Evaluate whether anyone within the company has a voice, likeness, or persona that has a moderate-to-high chance of being replicated or misused through generative AI tools.
- Revisit Trademark Strategy in View of New AI Tools. Consider whether existing trademark and copyright registrations adequately cover key brand assets, including names, catchphrases, stylized elements, and any other distinctive source identifiers that may serve as enforcement tools.
- Align with Platform Enforcement Realities. Ensure your IP strategy is structured to support efficient takedowns on major platforms, which often recognize only registered trademarks or copyrights.
- File in Class 41 for Entertainment Services. For public figures, Class 41 is often the most relevant and enforceable, and it is generally easier to demonstrate the necessary use in commerce for celebrities and other entertainers.
- Combine Trademark, Copyright, and State-Law Publicity Rights. While trademark registration offers advantages such as a presumption of validity, ownership, nationwide scope, cost-effectiveness, a federal cause of action, and potentially infinite duration, proving actual use of likeness-related marks in commerce might be challenging if the applicant created the marks to combat AI content. Moreover, federal law requires ongoing maintenance. And if registrable, visual, auditory, and other sensory marks often receive only narrow scope. Copyright may better protect certain assets like photographs. The strongest strategy is a multi-faceted approach—leveraging trademark, copyright, and state-law right of publicity enforcement.
As AI-generated content challenges traditional notions of identify and ownership, celebrities like Swift should proactively adapt their protection strategies to meet new realities in the absence of formal federal protection. While legislation like the NO-FAKES Act may eventually offer legal protections tailored to AI-generated content, no single doctrine or registration provides complete protection. In practice, trademark registrations offer one piece of the puzzle that increasingly not only function to clarify the scope of legal rights but also serve as practical enforcement tools that can aid in combating online infringement.
Subscribe for News and Updates
