Artists, AI Voices and the Limits of Trademark Protection

Shira Lazar discusses reported trademark applications, synthetic voices and a proposed federal response.

SLShira LazarIntervenant · What's Trending
Chaîne
Shira Lazar
Publié
2 mai 2026
Vidéo
1:34
Lecture
1 min
Original
anglais
Ouvrir sur YouTube
En faisant défiler, la vidéo se réduit en bas à droite et continue. Les sous-titres suivent votre langue de lecture.
Langue de lectureDisponible en 2 langues
Cet article n’est pas encore disponible en français ; il s’affiche dans l’original en anglais.
RÉSUMÉ

En 30 secondes

Shira Lazar connects reported Taylor Swift trademark applications with disputes over AI-generated voices and likenesses. Trademark applications are subject to examination and do not themselves create blanket rights over every use of a person’s voice or image.

  1. 1Applications and their limitsLazar describes reported applications concerning Swift’s voice and likeness. Trademark protection depends on the mark, goods or services and applicable law.
  2. 2Celebrity voicesLazar compares other celebrity licensing arrangements and disputes over synthetic voices.
  3. 3Music and proposed legislationShe cites music industry takedowns and discusses the proposed NO FAKES Act.

À retenir

  1. Lazar reports that Swift filed applications involving her voice and likeness.
  2. Filing an application is not the same as registration or a blanket ban on all uses.
  3. Lazar also discusses celebrity voice disputes, music takedowns and the proposed NO FAKES Act.
TEXTE INTÉGRAL

Lire le texte remanié, chapitre par chapitre

Transcription seule
01

AI and celebrity identity

Lazar discusses reported trademark applications and other responses to AI-generated voices and likenesses.

Shira Lazar reports that Taylor Swift filed three trademark applications involving her voice and likeness, presenting them as part of a broader effort by performers to respond to AI-generated imitations.

The video implies these filings would prohibit any unauthorized use of Swift’s voice or image. That is too broad: an application is examined, and trademark rights concern particular marks and goods or services. Filing alone does not create a blanket right over every use. See the [USPTO’s trademark overview](https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/what-trademark) and [application examination guide](https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/examination-application).

Lazar mentions Matthew McConaughey and a licensed voice arrangement as another example of a performer managing commercial uses of a recognizable identity.

She also references unauthorized advertisements featuring Morgan Freeman’s likeness and the dispute involving Scarlett Johansson and an OpenAI voice. These examples raise separate questions about permission and synthetic identity; their legal circumstances should not be assumed to be identical.

Lazar says Sony Music sought the removal of more than 135,000 AI-generated recordings, and frames that figure as evidence of concern among music-rights holders.

She brings up the proposed NO FAKES Act as a potential federal approach to unauthorized digital replicas. Her discussion describes a legislative proposal, not a determination of the law’s current status.

Lazar closes by asking how people and artists can protect their identities as synthetic media becomes easier to create.

Sur la même chaîne