Deepfakes, Trademarks and the Commercial Value of Identity
Generative AI is making it increasingly easy to imitate identities online. With relatively little source material, AI tools can now produce convincing “deepfakes” that imitate a person’s face, voice, image, and mannerisms.
As fake endorsements, cloned voices and synthetic advertising become more common, celebrities and athletes are looking to use trade marks as one part of a wider brand-protection strategy.
Why AI Deepfakes Are a Legal Risk
Deepfakes are no longer used as novelty content. They are used to suggest a connection with a celebrity which does not exist in things like:
- fake advertisements;
- unauthorised endorsements;
- cloned celebrity voices;
- manipulated social media campaigns;
- and online scams.
AI generated impersonations can damage reputations, dilute brand value, mislead consumers, and undermine revenue streams for celebrities such as sponsorships and endorsements.
Why Trade Mark Law Matters
The UK has no standalone statutory “image right”, so public figures rely on a combination of:
- trade marks;
- passing off;
- copyright;
- privacy rights;
- and data protection law.
Public figures are seeking registration for distinctive elements of their identity, including names, signatures, catchphrases, logos, gestures and, in some cases, voices, so that those features can function as enforceable commercial rights. They can in turn be used to combat consumer confusion and false endorsements. Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, a sign may be registrable if it is sufficiently distinctive and capable of indicating origin.
Some recent case studies
Taylor Swift has sought U.S. trade mark protection for elements of her public persona, including an Eras Tour stage image and audio marks featuring spoken album introductions such as “hey, it’s Taylor”-style clips.
These filings reflect a broader trend of celebrities seeking greater control over AI-generated voice and image cloning. Similar concerns have been raised by public figures such as Jeremy Clarkson, whose likeness and voice are highly recognisable.
Professional athletes taking a similar approach. Chelsea midfielder Cole Palmer has registered trade marks linked to his personal brand, including his “cold” celebration as a motion mark, “Cold Palmer,” and his autograph. Likewise, Luke Littler has moved to protect branding associated with his nickname “The Nuke” as his profile continues to grow.
In addition, Matthew McConaughey has pursued protections connected to his distinctive voice and famous catchphrases (“alright, alright, alright”) as part of broader anti-deepfake efforts.
As synthetic speech becomes more realistic, recognisable voices are increasingly being recognised as commercially valuable assets rather than just personal characteristics.
What To Consider
Celebrities, influencers, athletes, and public-facing professionals should consider:
- auditing trade mark portfolios;
- protecting slogans, logos, signatures, and audio marks;
- updating endorsement agreements to address AI content;
- monitoring for deepfakes and impersonations;
- and implementing rapid takedown procedures.
However, for businesses using generative AI in advertising care needs to be taken to ensure the outputs are not infringing any third party’s rights. The unauthorised use of a recognisable likeness or voice may give rise to claims in trade mark infringement, passing off, false endorsement or, depending on the jurisdiction, unfair competition and related rights.
The Future of Identity Rights
Generative AI is forcing courts and legislators to rethink identity protection. What was once largely a celebrity issue now affects athletes, influencers, executives, and businesses more broadly, as voices, likenesses, and public personas are increasingly treated as commercially valuable intellectual property assets. In March 2024, Tennessee passed the ELVIS Act (Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security), the first U.S. law specifically aimed at protecting musicians and celebrities from AI-generated misuse of their voice and likeness. It will be interesting to see whether the UK follows suit, particularly as the Government’s recent ‘Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence’ specifically called out the issues with digital replicas and the potential for a new right to combat misuse.
The information on this site about legal matters is provided as a general guide only. Although we try to ensure that all of the information on this site is accurate and up to date, this cannot be guaranteed. The information on this site should not be relied upon or construed as constituting legal advice and Howes Percival LLP disclaims liability in relation to its use. You should seek appropriate legal advice before taking or refraining from taking any action.
