The rise of artificial intelligence tools has made it simple to generate convincing copies of a person’s face and voice, and public figures are reacting by turning to traditional intellectual property defenses in new ways. In recent filings, the teams for Taylor Swift and Matthew McConaughey have asked federal authorities to recognise specific elements of their persona as protected marks, a move aimed at stopping unauthorised AI-driven imitations. This development raises questions about how well established legal mechanisms like trade marks and the Right of Publicity will hold up against rapidly evolving synthetic media.
At stake are both practical risks and reputational harms: cheap deepfakes can place celebrities’ images or voices into explicit or misleading contexts, and automated systems can reproduce a performer’s sound from only seconds of audio. To understand why actors and musicians are adopting trademark filings, it helps to look at what exactly has been submitted and how courts and platforms might react when synthetic content appears online.
What the filings actually cover
Some filings are narrowly focused while others are broader in scope. For example, Taylor Swift‘s company submitted three applications to the US Patent & Trademark Office, two protecting short audio phrases — the introductions used on streaming promos ‘Hey, it’s Taylor’ and ‘Hey, it’s Taylor Swift’ — and a pictorial application tied to an iconic image from her Eras Tour film showing the performer with a pink guitar and a glittering stage outfit. Earlier, Matthew McConaughey pursued multiple registrations that include audio of his signature line ‘all right, all right, all right’ and several brief video clips; attorneys for McConaughey said those registrations are meant to prevent apps or individuals from using AI to mimic his voice or image without permission.
Legal strategies and limits
Trade marks as a tactical tool
Using a trademark to protect a person’s voice or likeness is not the traditional path, but it can be effective because trademarks are enforced when consumers are likely to be confused about endorsement or origin. In this context, a celebrity might argue that synthetic audio or imagery falsely implies endorsement of a product or message. The logic relies on the definition of trademark law as protecting symbols and identifiers that connect a public figure to a source, and it can be faster and clearer to litigate than some other claims.
Practical and legal limits
Even so, trademark filings are not a cure-all. They work well when a registration is granted and the alleged infringer’s creation causes confusion, but they may not stop every misuse and their reach differs across jurisdictions. Other legal doctrines such as the Right of Publicity and copyright may offer complementary remedies. Legislative moves are reshaping the landscape too: in December, the federal government issued executive direction limiting patchwork state AI rules, while state laws like Tennessee’s Elvis Act remain focused on protecting performers’ voices and likenesses.
Wider consequences and reactions
The trademark tactic has inspired a wider roster of responses. Public figures from Oprah Winfrey to Nigella Lawson have been targeted by deepfake content, and cases range from manipulated photos to fabricated endorsements. In the UK, Jeremy Clarkson filed for photographic protections after scammers used his image in crypto promotions, and model Katie Price negotiated a deal to revive an AI version of a former persona. Performers such as Scarlett Johansson and Tom Hanks have publicly protested unauthorised uses, and a collective campaign called Stealing Isn’t Innovation mobilised creators against tech companies building language and image models from existing works without licence. Platforms are also responding: YouTube has begun sharing its deepfake detection tool with talent agencies to streamline takedowns.
What this trend means going forward
For celebrities the filings are a defensive experiment: they test whether federal trademark registration can be translated into a fast, enforceable remedy against synthetic impersonation. For the rest of us, the shift signals that intellectual property law will play a central role in governing the new media landscape, even as courts and legislatures adapt. Whether trademarks, publicity rights, new statutes, or platform tools will deliver broad protection remains unsettled, but the effort by high-profile figures to stake legal claims over their voice and image marks an important moment in how reputation and technology intersect in the age of AI.
