Can you own a voice? Taylor Swift’s latest legal move raises big questions for AI and copyright

2026-05-26 · Source: Artificial intelligence (AI) – The Conversation · Field: Legal & Regulatory — Intellectual Property & Patents, Regulatory Affairs & Government Relations · Depth: Novice, short

Summary

Taylor Swift has filed a trademark application covering her voice and stage image, including specific voice recordings and a photo of her Eras Tour bodysuit. This action aligns with her history of challenging industry norms, such as removing her catalog from Spotify in 2014 and rerecording albums in 2019 following Scooter Braun's acquisition of her masters. While Matthew McConaughey previously trademarked movie dialogue, Swift is a notable music artist to take this step, raising significant questions for AI and copyright law. The article discusses legal precedents like Bette Midler's 1988 "passing off" lawsuit against Ford for voice impersonation, the challenges of deepfakes which Swift has experienced, and the complex issue of AI training data. Concerns from organizations like the UK Musicians Union and the Performing Rights Society highlight the need for consent and remuneration for artists whose work is used by AI.

Key takeaway

For legal professionals advising artists or creative industries on intellectual property, Taylor Swift's trademarking of her voice and image signals a proactive strategy against AI-driven impersonation and unauthorized use. You should consider advising clients to register distinctive elements of their identity, as this provides a stronger basis for civil action and acts as a deterrent against deepfakes and AI training data exploitation. This approach can offer faster enforcement than relying solely on criminal justice systems.

Key insights

Artists are increasingly using trademarks and legal action to protect their identity and works from AI exploitation.

Principles

• Deliberate voice copying can constitute "passing off."
• IP registration deters AI-generated infringement.
• Human input is crucial for music copyrightability.

In practice

• Trademark distinctive vocal styles and visual likenesses.
• Advocate for consent and remuneration for AI training data.

Topics

• Intellectual Property Law
• AI Deepfakes
• Copyright Infringement
• Trademark Protection
• Music Industry
• AI Training Data

Best for: CTO, VP of Engineering/Data, Director of AI/ML, Legal Professional, Domain Expert, AI Ethicist

Related on AIssential

• TikTok creator ByteDance vows to curb AI video tool after Disney threat — AI video generation tools face significant legal challenges over intellectual property infringement from major media companies.
• Cate Blanchett is taking on AI. She is the guardian of artists’ identity - ThePrint — RSL Media provides a free platform for artists to control AI's use of their creative identity via a consent signal.
• ‘This is fine’ creator says AI startup stole his art — Unauthorized commercial use of meme-able art by AI companies sparks artist outrage and potential legal action.
• Intellectual Property vs. Machine Learning: Data Ownership and AI Models in the Age of Litigation — AI's reliance on vast datasets without clear consent creates profound, unresolved intellectual property and ownership disputes.
• AI-Faked Voice and Fake Texts Destroyed a K-Drama Star’s Career — The weaponization of AI-generated deepfakes and manipulated digital evidence can swiftly destroy public figures' careers and mental health.
• ‘It will never cover what’s authentic’: African music industry weighs up AI risks and rewards — AI offers music industry tools but cannot replace human authenticity, especially in vulnerable markets.

Open in AIssential →

Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by Artificial intelligence (AI) – The Conversation.