Your Voice is an Asset

Legislation and foreign practice are only now beginning to address and consider this issue.

The discussion of the issue must begin with what the courts have not yet decided: whether the sound of your voice, not a recording of it, but its quality, its pattern, the way it is recognizable as yours, can be protected as a trademark. This question, which once seemed academic, is now the subject of active filings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

On April 24, 2026, Taylor Swift's company, TAS Rights Management, submitted three trademark applications to the USPTO. Two are sound marks: one covers the phrase "Hey, it’s Taylor Swift," and the other "Hey, it’s Taylor." The third is a visual mark: a specific stage image from her Eras Tour, described in precise detail in the filing.

These are not merely preventive registrations carried out for caution. This is a deliberate legal strategy specifically designed to eliminate one of the shortcomings of existing legislation. Specifically, it concerns the inability of copyright law to adequately respond to the challenge posed by artificial intelligence-generated imitations.

Before Taylor Swift, in January 2026, actor Matthew McConaughey had already filed a series of trademarks covering his images, videos, and audio recordings, including a sound trademark for his signature phrase, "Alright, alright, alright." McConaughey’s legal team successfully obtained this protection, making him the first A-list celebrity to test this avenue. Taylor Swift is now the second.

Why are copyright or the right of publicity not used?

Copyright protects original creative works from direct reproduction. It is a powerful, well-established, and federally enforceable mechanism. However, the main problem is that an artificial intelligence-generated voice, which, for example, imitates Taylor Swift, does not copy any specific recording owned by the singer. This is a synthetic creation, trained on patterns and not directly copied from source material. Copyright, under the current state of legislation, does not cover such cases. Even the Georgian Law "Copyright and Related Rights" directly clarifies that the object of copyright is a work created as a result of human intellectual and creative activity. In this case, a work is anything that a person creates, expresses, and presents in a form that can be perceived.

With the existence of artificial intelligence, society faces a very big problem, because even though through deep observation it may be possible to recognize whether artificial intelligence has been used to create this or that visual material, it may not be so easy to recognize in the case of voice imitation.

The right of publicity (Right of Publicity), a legal doctrine that grants individuals control over the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness, may fit more appropriately in this context. However, it has a structural flaw: this right exists only at the state level, and the difference between jurisdictions is significant. Some states protect it even after death, while others do not. Some extend it to any person, while others only to those with commercially valuable identities. Several states do not recognize this right at all.

It should be noted that in Georgia, the right to a name is characterized by a fundamentally different legal nature and is protected primarily within the scope of personal non-property rights. In this case, the context is specific: the right to a name implies the author's prerogative to demand that their name be indicated on the work in an appropriate manner. Consequently, this institution of Georgian legislation cannot serve as an effective legal lever in this matter, as it protects the author's personal connection to the work and not the commercial exploitation of an individual's identity (voice, image) by artificial intelligence.

The problem actually began in January 2024, when AI-generated pornographic images of Taylor Swift spread across X on a scale that revealed how entirely unprepared existing platforms and laws were to respond. A single post garnered over 47 million views before the account was blocked. X blocked all searches for Swift's name, a crude, temporary measure that demonstrated the absence of any real legal or technical mechanism. The White House described the situation as "alarming." Congress expressed outrage, but no legislation was adopted or amended. Georgian legislation, both "Trademarks" and "Copyright and Related Rights" are completely unprepared because these laws were created at a time when the issue of artificial intelligence was not even on the agenda, and therefore they are completely unprepared for technological challenges.

In reality, the applications filed by Taylor Swift do not mean that the problem of artificial intelligence-generated vocal or visual imitations will be removed from the agenda. Her lawyers' strategy is primarily aimed at obtaining priority: in the event that someone uses her voice or stage appearance in other visual material, the singer will have a legal advantage because a preliminary application for it will already be registered.

It is true that there are still many questions, and most of them, unfortunately, remain unanswered. In an era of rapid technological development, it is extremely difficult to respond promptly to all challenges and to develop effective legal mechanisms instantly.