While copyright law often struggles to protect a “style” or “voice” that is not recorded as a fixed, protected work, celebrities and creators have recently been exploring creative solutions in parallel legal fields – trademark law and the right of publicity – to prevent unauthorized use of their voices.
In the landmark case of Midler v. Ford Motor Co. (1988), singer Bette Midler sued Ford, claiming the company had used one of her backup singers, who was instructed to imitate Midler’s distinctive voice in a car commercial. The court held that “a person’s voice is one of their most identifying characteristics,” and that imitating Midler’s voice – even without using her name – constituted a violation of her right of publicity.
More recently, American radio broadcaster David Greene filed a lawsuit in the Santa Clara District Court against Google, alleging that the virtual host on NotebookLM – which generates, among other things, on-demand podcasts – sounds exactly like him and is based on his voice. Google denies the claim, asserting that the voice is based on a professional actor it employed.
The question of protecting a person’s voice has become increasingly urgent in the era of generative AI, with the Matthew McConaughey case and the enactment of the ELVIS Act marking a new and critical line of defense in the battle for human authenticity.
The decision by actor Matthew McConaughey to register his most iconic catchphrase – “Alright, alright, alright” – as a trademark is not merely a marketing move, but a sophisticated legal tactic to protect against the use of his voice through generative artificial intelligence.
Trademark as a Source Identifier: Unlike copyright, which protects the work itself, a trademark is designed to prevent consumer confusion regarding the source of a product or service. By registering the phrase as a trademark, McConaughey creates a tool that allows him to sue companies that use a clone of his voice saying that phrase, on the grounds that the public might mistakenly believe McConaughey himself is endorsing or “standing behind” the publication.
“Protecting the Persona”: The phrase has become an inseparable part of the actor’s personal brand. In the age of generative AI – where it is easy to produce a video of McConaughey selling products he has never heard of – the trademark serves as a legal barrier that is far more difficult to circumvent than arguments of “fair use.”
“The ELVIS Act” – Explicit Protection for the Human Voice: The state of Tennessee – the music capital of the United States – made history with the enactment of the ELVIS Act (Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act). This is the first law of its kind to elevate the human voice to the status of an explicitly protected property right.
From a Personal Right to a Property Right: Previously, protection of a person’s voice relied primarily on the “right of publicity,” which sometimes expired upon the artist’s death or was limited to narrow commercial use. The ELVIS Act defines the voice as a heritable and insurable property asset, thereby granting the heirs of artists – such as Elvis Presley, from whom the law takes its name – the power to stop unauthorized AI uses of the deceased’s voice.
Implications for the Deepfake Industry: The law allows lawsuits to be filed not only against those who created the clone, but also against those who distribute it or knowingly provide the technology that enables the forgery. This represents a significant expansion of liability, designed to deter technology companies from developing tools intended to clone artists’ voices without a license.
Unlike text or images, the human voice carries an emotional and intimate weight that constitutes a kind of “biometric fingerprint” of the individual.
Preventing Cultural Identity Theft: Without these protections, artists may find themselves competing against countless cheap AI versions of themselves. If anyone can produce a new song in the voice of The Weeknd or Adele at the push of a button, the economic value of the human artist is eroded entirely.
The Moral and Ethical Dimension: A person’s voice is part of their privacy. Using AI to make a person say things they never said constitutes a serious violation of individual autonomy and freedom of will.
The trend marked by McConaughey and the ELVIS Act demonstrates that traditional intellectual property law is undergoing a kind of “personalization” – seeking to fill a gap that has become increasingly necessary in the age of artificial intelligence. Beyond protecting the product (the song, the film), there is now an effort to protect the “personal” components of the creator themselves: the voice, the appearance, the image.
The use of trademarks and state-specific legislation represents an attempt to bridge the gap left by copyright law in addressing AI as an infringing actor. For attorneys in the field, the message is clear: protecting clients in the AI era requires a multi-layered strategy that incorporates a broad view of intellectual property law – including trademarks – with the goal of creating protection for various components, some of which are not covered by copyright law.
