this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2026
220 points (97.0% liked)

Technology

84166 readers
3055 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
220
Taylor Swift files to trademark her voice and likeness in era of AI deepfakes (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 10 hours ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SethTaylor@lemmy.world 8 points 45 minutes ago* (last edited 29 minutes ago) (2 children)

If someone used my face and voice to make money without so much as asking me I'd be pissed off too.

In 2023, Scarlett Johansson’s attorney demanded that an AI app stop using her likeness in an advertisement. The actor also called out OpenAI in 2024 for using an “eerily similar” voice to hers for their GPT-4o chatbot despite having declined the company’s request to provide her voice. OpenAI subsequently announced it would no longer be using the voice, but did not indicate why.

In 2024, Tom Hanks called out the “multiple ads over the internet falsely using my name, likeness, and voice promoting miracle cures and wonder drugs.”

Look at this shit. This is illegal as fuck. Imagine being a doctor and some RFK-type podcaster uses your name, face and voice to promote some hack cure and destroys your reputation.

And they ASKED Johansson and she said no and they still did it. Fuckin AI motherfuckers. No shame

[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 4 points 33 minutes ago

The amount of money these companies have is disproportionate to the amount of punishment they receive when they break a law. People look at the victim and think why should she get billions (which would be a truly proportional punishment) just for them using a voice that sounds like hers. Okay fine. Then give her a commensurate amount and put the rest into a legal defense fund to help others who were harmed. But either way, the company should be proportionately punished to deter them or others from doing same again.

[–] Gonzako@lemmy.world 4 points 33 minutes ago

Rape culture type shit

[–] GreenBeanMachine@lemmy.world 4 points 12 minutes ago* (last edited 12 minutes ago)

Fuck all billionaires. Fuck Taylor. Fuck AI.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 11 points 4 hours ago

Let the billionaires fight eachother. And be all asshurt over it. People should start making AI Slop Taylor Swift songs and watch the Streisand effect follow.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 4 hours ago

Too late I already patented it.

/j

[–] jobbies@lemmy.zip 15 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Using copyright to prevent pirating, what a novel idea! I am shaking in my boots! No pirating for me!!

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

More in line of protecting against synthetic copy cats than piracy but k

[–] lordnikon@lemmy.world 6 points 4 hours ago

Did someone say Cats?

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 points 5 hours ago

The headline and article have zero relation with Swift's actions. It's pure speculation. I'm surprised she hasn't done that yet.

[–] BigMacHole@thelemmy.club 52 points 8 hours ago

It's a GOOD THING AI companies RESPECT Trademarks and Copyrights!

[–] WagnasT@piefed.world 78 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (5 children)

I feel like your likeness should be protected by default, is it not?

To be clear, not under copy protection but is there some other protection from impersonation such as fraud?

[–] MurrayL@lemmy.world 1 points 20 minutes ago* (last edited 11 minutes ago)

Fun fact: there’s no general concept of image/likeness rights in the UK, and photographers own the full copyright of any photos they take.

There are other laws that come into play if you were in a private place or if your likeness is used to falsely imply endorsement, but otherwise if someone takes your photo in public they can do whatever they want with it.

(Obvious disclaimer that I’m not a lawyer but the above is my understanding of the law.)

[–] piwakawakas@lemmy.nz 25 points 8 hours ago

Denmark has created a new law for exactly this reason. You are entitled to your own likeness. I'm unaware of other countries, but I remember reading about the Denmark one

[–] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 11 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

In the US there is a "right of publicity" that is based on state law, typically for commercial uses. There are also some laws depending on locality criminalizing deepfakes for revenge porn. Some countries use copyright law to the same end.

The "doppelganger problem" is really why this is not an easy issue to answer. If someone gets exclusive rights to a specific face, who is to say another person naturally having a similar face isn't being wronged? How close is too close? What about similar names? And should that really be protected after death (which copyright and trademark and some publicity laws allow)?

[–] helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Its gonna have to be case specific. -which as you said, is why it's not so easy to make law.

If a Taylor Swift doppelganger started claiming to be Taylor Swift and making a scene, then sure the real one should be able to shut that down.

If the doppelganger started her own music career with her own name and music, then Taylor Swift can't do shit.

If the doppelganger is somehow artificially created (computer generated or elaborate makeup/costume) than it does not have the same rights, and can be shutdown (unless its falls into the parody category, but even then it should be obviously not real).

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

You can be as close as you want, as long as you don't exploit it or cause confusion. For example, Apple Computer and Apple Records coexisted for decades because they operated in separate industries. It only became a problem when Apple Computer started Apple Music.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Do we need a spoiler alert for who won that battle?

[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

It was Apple.

[–] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 7 points 9 hours ago

Yes, but my understanding is that the bar to clear for a successful suit is a lot lower for trademark violation vs 'unauthorized use of likeness' or similar.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 2 points 8 hours ago

It is, but filling for registration gets you a little extra protection. Mostly just for a stronger lawsuit.

Apparently the USPTO has a whole page about it now; https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/name-image-and-likeness

[–] halfapage@lemmy.world 9 points 7 hours ago

i mean good luck

[–] artyom@piefed.social 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

So now if someone posts photos or videos of TS on Instagram she can sue IG? Or what?

The global pop superstar on Friday filed trademark applications for two audio clips of her voice

So it only applies to those 2 audio clips?

This is terrible reporting.

[–] MutantTailThing@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago

I read files as flies and it also made perfect sense to me.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 9 hours ago

I don't want to live in this universe anymore.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

Her real voice, or the auto-tuned one?