Showing posts with label rights of publicity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights of publicity. Show all posts

Thursday, May 28, 2026

Taylor Swift trademarking her voice and likeness points to a new legal frontier in combating AI deepfakes; The Conversation, May 28, 2026

  Associate Dean for Research and Strategic Partnerships, Penn State, The Conversation; Taylor Swift trademarking her voice and likeness points to a new legal frontier in combating AI deepfakes

"As a law professor, I was struck by Swift’s filings because they highlight a new legal frontier in artificial intelligence.

Most AI-related litigation has centered on copyright law, which protects creative works such as songs, books, photographs and recordings from being copied, distributed, adapted or publicly performed without permission.

But TAS Rights Management’s recent move involves trademark law, not copyright. The filings aren’t really about protecting Swift’s lyrics or albums. Instead, they’re about preventing AI-generated voices and images from misleading people into believing she has endorsed a product, political message or cause."

Friday, May 22, 2026

Deepfakes are testing the limits of IP law; Politico, May 21, 2026

AARON MAK , Politico; Deepfakes are testing the limits of IP law

"Nonconsensual deepfakes have become one of the most reviled applications of AI, and Congress is now looking to use the might of intellectual property law to keep them in check.

On Wednesday, a bipartisan group of lawmakers reintroduced the NO FAKES Act, which would essentially give all Americans an IP right to their voice and likeness. The act’s sponsors promote it not only as a way to protect artists and entertainers from having their creative output co-opted by AI, but as a safeguard for everyone else against pornographic deepfakes, fraudulent impersonation and a host of other ills.

NO FAKES would considerably expand the ambit of IP, which was originally aimed at incentivizing innovation and creativity. Using IP to also address issues like misinformation and sexual exploitation arguably brings this body of law into uncharted territory. Legal scholars told DFD that marshaling IP as an all-purpose shield against malicious deepfakes may have unintended consequences.

“The challenge posed by deepfakes is real, urgent and human, but not every human harm is an intellectual property harm,” said Georgetown IP law professor Madhavi Sunder. “Intellectual property can’t be everything everywhere all at once.”"

Tuesday, May 12, 2026

Celebrities are filing trademarks to combat AI clones. Should you?; The Washington Post, May 8, 2026

, The Washington Post ; Celebrities are filing trademarks to combat AI clones. Should you?

"The lawyers The Post spoke with for this article said that more celebrities might follow McConaughey and Swift in registering trademarks of their likenesses. If they’re using their likenesses or voices in a commercial context — a requirement to claim a trademark — these registrations could act as a safeguard. Pollack said a lot of his clients have asked about filing trademarks as a protection in the AI age.

“McConaughey and Swift registered sound clips, which is not entirely novel,” said Jennifer Rothman, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. “That will probably cause more of a trend of people who are actors and singers using those voice clips to claim that their voice itself is a mark.”"

Monday, May 11, 2026

Dua Lipa sues Samsung for $15 million for allegedly using her image to sell TVs; Reuters, May 11, 2026

 , Reuters; Dua Lipa sues Samsung for $15 million for allegedly using her image to sell TVs

"British pop star ‌Dua Lipa has filed a lawsuit against Samsung Electronics seeking at least $15 million in damages, accusing the South Korean tech giant of using her image without permission to market its television sets.

The lawsuit ​alleges that Samsung featured a copyrighted image of the pop star on ​the front of cardboard boxes containing televisions for retail sale, enabling the company ⁠to benefit from what seemed like her endorsement of the product."

Wednesday, May 6, 2026

‘Avatar’ Suit Focuses on Hot Topic in A.I. Age: A Character’s Face; The New York Times, May 5, 2026

, The New York Times ; ‘Avatar’ Suit Focuses on Hot Topic in A.I. Age: A Character’s Face

"An actress accused the director James Cameron of stealing her likeness to create an “Avatar” character in a lawsuit filed on Tuesday in California — a case that reflects a core fear among Hollywood performers in the artificial intelligence age: losing control of their own faces.

The actress, Q’orianka Kilcher, also sued Disney, which controls the multibillion-dollar “Avatar” franchise, which started in 2009...

The lawsuit involves Neytiri, the digitally created, blue-skinned warrior princess in Mr. Cameron’s three “Avatar” blockbusters. According to the complaint, Mr. Cameron used a photo of Ms. Kilcher as a teenager — without her knowledge — as the foundation for Neytiri, incorporating her features “directly into his production art” and digital production pipeline.

“Neytiri’s lips, chin, jawline and overall mouth shape” in the trilogy “are Q’orianka Kilcher’s,” the complaint said. “This was not a fleeting inspiration or a vague homage; it was a literal transplant of a real teenager’s facial structure.”

In 2010, Ms. Kilcher, who is also an Indigenous rights activist, met Mr. Cameron by chance at a charity event in Hollywood, where he told her that she was the “early inspiration” for Neytiri’s look, according to the complaint. “She did not take this to mean that her actual face had been replicated,” the complaint said.

Ms. Kilcher is suing now, the complaint said, because of an interview that Mr. Cameron gave to a French media outlet in 2024. In the interview, Mr. Cameron mentions Ms. Kilcher and “points to an image of Neytiri and says unambiguously: ‘This is actually her lower face,’” the complaint said. The interview came to her attention a year later."

Friday, May 1, 2026

When Copyright Falls Short: Why Celebrities Are Turning to Trademark Law to Fight AI; JDSupra, April 30, 2026

 Kaufman & Canoles, JDSupra; When Copyright Falls Short: Why Celebrities Are Turning to Trademark Law to Fight AI

"The filings come as traditional copyright laws fail to guard against AI-generated content. AI can now generate completely new content that mimics an artist’s voice without outright copying."

Val Kilmer’s Daughter Responds to Criticism of AI Performance, Says Late Dad Wanted to ‘Set Precedent; TODAY, April 29, 2026

  Scott Stump, TODAY; Val Kilmer’s Daughter Responds to Criticism of AI Performance, Says Late Dad Wanted to ‘Set Precedent’

"Val Kilmer’s daughter explained why her family supports an AI-generated version of the late actor appearing in an upcoming movie, which has sparked a fierce debate in a Hollywood industry on edge about AI taking jobs from actors.

Mercedes Kilmer, 34, spoke on TODAY April 29 about an AI-generated version of the late star of "Top Gun," "The Doors" and "Tombstone" appearing as Father Fintan, a priest and Native American spiritualist in the upcoming movie "As Deep as the Grave." 

She said her father "wanted to do this" out of a desire to create "structures for actors to own their licensing and to have rights.""

Tuesday, April 28, 2026

Taylor Swift files to trademark her voice, likeness to ward off AI deepfakes; Reuters, April 27, 2026

 , Reuters; Taylor Swift files to trademark her voice, likeness to ward off AI deepfakes

"Pop superstar Taylor Swift filed trademark applications for two audio clips and one image of ‌herself in what a trademark attorney said is an attempt to protect her voice and likeness from deepfake videos and audio created by artificial intelligence.

The applications were filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Friday and list Swift's TAS ​Rights Management as being the owner of the audio clips and image."

Printify Releases Guide on How to Avoid Copyright Infringement with T-shirts; The National Law Review, April 28, 2026

Press Release, The National Law Review; Printify Releases Guide on How to Avoid Copyright Infringement with T-shirts

"Printify, a leading print-on-demand platform, has announced the release of a comprehensive new guide designed to help entrepreneurs understand how to avoid copyright infringement when creating and selling custom apparel. As the t-shirt business continues to attract new creators, the risk of legal missteps—ranging from cease-and-desist letters to costly lawsuits—has become a major concern across the industry.

The guide delivers a clear, practical breakdown of intellectual property rules, helping sellers navigate the complexities of copyright, trademark, and publicity rights. By combining legal fundamentals with actionable advice, Printify aims to give entrepreneurs the confidence to create and scale their businesses without unnecessary risk.

Launching a t-shirt business has never been more accessible, but legal awareness remains one of the most overlooked aspects of success. With this release, Printify places itself at the center of a safer, more informed approach to building apparel brands."

Tuesday, April 21, 2026

YouTube Opens Up AI Deepfake Detection Tool to All of Hollywood (Exclusive); The Hollywood Reporter, April 21, 2026

Alex Weprin, The Hollywood Reporter ; YouTube Opens Up AI Deepfake Detection Tool to All of Hollywood (Exclusive)

The tool, which requires a celebrity to upload their likeness, will flag potentially infringing content — like, say, a star playing a role in fan-generated movie — for a possible takedown.

"Executives at the Google-owned platform tell The Hollywood Reporter that their proprietary deepfake detection tool, years in the making, is now open to anyone at high risk of having their likeness abused: Actors, athletes, creators and musicians, whether they have a YouTube channel or not, can sign up to identify and request removal of deepfakes on its platform...

The timing of the tool’s expansion comes as the industry grapples with the continued growth of deepfakes across platforms, and with video models quickly turning hypothetical worst-case scenarios into reality for many stars."

Thursday, April 16, 2026

Val Kilmer Resurrected by AI: ‘As Deep as the Grave’ Trailer Brings Late Actor Back to the Big Screen (EXCLUSIVE); Variety, April 15, 2026

  Brent Lang, Variety; Val Kilmer Resurrected by AI: ‘As Deep as the Grave’ Trailer Brings Late Actor Back to the Big Screen (EXCLUSIVE)

"The filmmakers behind “As Deep as the Grave” have debuted the trailer for the upcoming historical drama, giving viewers a first look at the AI technology that was used to create Val Kilmer‘s performance.

Kilmer, who died in 2025 after battling throat cancer, was cast as Father Fintan, a Catholic priest and Native American spiritualist, but was too sick to shoot his role. With the cooperation of Kilmer’s estate and his daughter Mercedes, the “As Deep as the Grave” team used generative AI to include the actor in the finished film."

Tuesday, April 7, 2026

The Copyright Act in the age of AI; Politico, April 6, 2026

AARON MAK , Politico; The Copyright Act in the age of AI

"The Copyright Act is reaching a major milestone this year, yet some legal scholars aren’t sure how well it will hold up in the age of artificial intelligence.

Stanford University held a summit on Friday to celebrate (and fret about) the 1976 act, which is the foundation of modern copyright law, as the 50th anniversary of its signing approaches in October. Academics advanced a number of proposals to update and reinterpret American copyright law, though several also warned against stretching it too far. The consensus: AI will reshape copyright whether we like it or not, and that it’s time to grapple with the implications."

Saturday, March 14, 2026

What Was Grammarly Thinking?; The Atlantic, March 12, 2026

 Kaitlyn Tiffany, The Atlantic ; What Was Grammarly Thinking?

A short-lived AI tool promised to help users write like the greats—and a bunch of other random people, including me.

"But in the age of generative AI, there are many new kinds of copying. For instance, Wired reported last week on a tool offered by Grammarly, which briefly offered users the opportunity to put their writing through something called “Expert Review.” This produced AI-generated advice purportedly from the perspective of a bunch of famous authors, a bunch of less-famous working journalists (including myself, per The Verge’s reporting), and a bunch of academics (including some who had recently died).

I say “briefly” because the company deactivated the feature today. A lot of people got really mad about it because none of the experts had agreed for their work to be used in such a way, or to serve as uncompensated marketing for an app that people use to help them write more legible emails. “We hear the feedback and recognize we fell short on this,” the company’s CEO, Shishir Mehrotra, wrote on his LinkedIn page yesterday. Not long after, Wired reported that one of the journalists whose name had been used in the feature, Julia Angwin, was filing a class-action lawsuit against Grammarly’s owner, Superhuman Platform. In a statement forwarded by a spokesperson, Mehrotra repeated apologies made in his LinkedIn post and added, "We have reviewed the lawsuit, and we believe the legal claims are without merit and will strongly defend against them.”...

Now that I’ve looked more closely at this not-very-useful feature, and now that it’s shut down, the whole situation seems a little absurd. This was just a weird and inappropriate thing that a company tried to do to make money without putting in very much effort. The primary reason it became a news story at all was that it touched on widespread anxiety about whose work is worth what, whose skills will continue to be marketable in the age of AI, and whether any of us are really as complex, singular, and impossible-to-imitate as we might hope we are."

Friday, March 13, 2026

Former NFL players decry White House video mixing big hits, airstrikes; The Washington Post, March 12, 2026

, The Washington Post; Former NFL players decry White House video mixing big hits, airstrikes

"The football montage, which was still online as of Thursday morning and by that time had collected over 10 million views on X, was met with criticism from members of the college and pro football community, not simply for the comparison of war and sport, but for the NFL’s and other rightsholders’ failure to object to the use of the images."

Monday, March 2, 2026

Everybody’s Talking About AI: Takeaways from the February 20, 2026 Fordham Law Symposium; Lexology, February 26, 2026

Seyfarth Shaw LLP - Owen Wolfe, Lexology; Everybody’s Talking About AI: Takeaways from the February 20, 2026 Fordham Law Symposium

"On February 20, 2026, Gadgets, Gigabytes and Goodwill Blog co-editor Owen Wolfe spoke at the Fordham School of Law as part of the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal Symposium, The Meaning of Ownership: Rethinking Intellectual Property, Creativity, and Control in the Age of Innovation. Owen discussed how courts have so far applied the “fair use” doctrine to cases involving generative AI, distinguishing between use of copyrighted materials in gen AI training and gen AI outputs that are alleged to be substantially similar to the original works. He noted that the decisions to date have been mixed, with some courts finding that certain uses of copyrighted works for AI training are fair use, and other courts expressing skepticism about whether that is the correct result. Owen also surveyed arguments both for and against a finding of fair use, giving the audience food for thought about what courts might decide in the future and whether we might see an amendment to the Copyright Act down the road.

Owen’s talk followed one by Dr. Douglas Lind, a professor at Virginia Tech, who surveyed the history of copyright law in the United States. He focused on the law’s treatment of phonograph records and sound recordings when those new technologies first emerged. Dr. Lind noted that copyright law evolved, and the Copyright Act was eventually amended, to address those new technologies. Dr. Lind raised the question of whether the Copyright Act should be amended again to address gen AI."

Friday, February 20, 2026

The battle over Scott Adams' AI afterlife; Business Insider, February 20, 2026

 Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert, Business Insider; The battle over Scott Adams' AI afterlife

 "In a 2021 podcast clip, the cartoonist said he granted "explicit permission" for anyone to make a posthumous AI based on him, arguing that his public thoughts and words are "so pervasive on the internet" that he'd be "a good candidate to turn into AI." He added that he was OK with an AI version of him saying new things after he died, as long as they seemed compatible with what he might say while alive.

Shortly after the 68-year-old's January death from complications of metastatic prostate cancer, an AI-generated "Scott Adams" account began posting videos of a digital version of the cartoonist speaking directly to viewers about current events and philosophy, mirroring the cadence and topics the actual human Adams discussed for years.

His family says it's a violation, not a tribute."

Wednesday, February 18, 2026

Dinner Is Being Recorded, Whether You Know It or Not; The New York Times, February 16, 2026

  , The New York Times; Dinner Is Being Recorded, Whether You Know It or Not

"To be in public is to risk being filmed. And these days, there’s a good chance it’s happening surreptitiously with smart glasses. Their wearers are filming in restaurants, cafes and bars, capturing warped, eye-level video of drive-through pranks, Michelin-starred meals and work shifts at Texas Roadhouse. Servers, owners and customers can end up as captive participants...

Filming in public spaces is broadly protected by the First Amendment. Some states, including California and Pennsylvania, have two-party consent laws that prohibit recording without express permission, but enforcing them hinges on whether someone has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in a given setting, said Aaron Krowne, a New York City lawyer specializing in privacy and civil liberties. Restaurants fall in a legal gray area: They are privately owned, but open to anyone who walks in...

The responsibility of using these devices ethically falls largely on the wearer."

Monday, February 16, 2026

ByteDance says it will add safeguards to Seedance 2.0 following Hollywood backlash; CNBC, February 16, 2026

Dylan Butts, CNBC; ByteDance says it will add safeguards to Seedance 2.0 following Hollywood backlash

"Chinese tech giant ByteDance has said it will strengthen safeguards on a new artificial intelligence video-making tool, following complaints of copyright theft from entertainment giants. 

The tool, Seedance 2.0, enables users to create realistic videos based on text prompts. However, viral videos shared online appear to show copyrighted characters and celebrity likenesses, raising intellectual property concerns in the U.S. 

“ByteDance respects intellectual property rights and we have heard the concerns regarding Seedance 2.0,” a company spokesperson said in a statement shared with CNBC."

Sunday, February 8, 2026

Legal Battle Continues for Amyl & the Sniffers and L.A. Photographer, Both Citing Copyright Infringement; Vice, February 4, 2026

, Vice; Legal Battle Continues for Amyl & the Sniffers and L.A. Photographer, Both Citing Copyright Infringement

"Legal issues have escalated for Australian punks Amyl & The Sniffers, and right after they announced upcoming tour dates. L.A. courts scheduled a hearing for February 13, 2026, regarding a copyright lawsuit and a restraining order filed last year. The issue allegedly began in June 2024, involving L.A.-based photographer Jamie Nelson.

In December 2025, Nelson filed a civil harassment restraining order petition against Amy Taylor, vocalist of Amyl & The Sniffers. Courts in L.A. did not grant the temporary restraining order. But they did schedule the hearing at this time.

Nelson is cited as the creator and copyright holder of a series of photographs taken of Taylor. The series, titled “Champagne Problems”, appeared in the July 2025 issue of Vogue Portugal.The problem arises for both parties in the subsequent use of these photos beyond their initial purpose.

Essentially, Nelson is accusing Taylor of violating copyright on her photos. Allegedly, a third party related to Taylor distributed them without permission. Prior to this, Taylor accused Nelson of exploiting her image for profit and self-advertisement. Allegedly, she sold fine art prints of the photos. Both parties have taken legal action."

Sunday, January 18, 2026

Matthew McConaughey Trademarks ‘Alright, Alright, Alright!’ and Other IP as Legal Protections Against ‘AI Misuse’; Variety, January 14, 2026

Todd Spangler, Variety ; Matthew McConaughey Trademarks ‘Alright, Alright, Alright!’ and Other IP as Legal Protections Against ‘AI Misuse’

"Matthew McConaughey’s lawyers want you to know that using AI to replicate the actor’s famous catchphrase is not “alright, alright, alright.”

Attorneys for entertainment law firm Yorn Levine representing McConaughey have secured eight trademarks from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office over the last several months for their client, which they said is aimed at protecting his voice and likeness from unauthorized AI misuse."