Your voice can be cloned in minutes using AI, and Taylor Swift is trying to protect hers but what rights do the rest of us have?

Date:
Tue, 07 Jul 2026 10:37:52 +0000

Description:
As Taylor Swift fights for ownership of her voice, I asked legal experts what rights the rest of us have.

FULL STORY ======================================================================Copy link Facebook X Whatsapp Reddit Pinterest Flipboard Threads Email Share this article 0 Join the conversation Follow us Add us as a preferred source on Google Newsletter Subscribe to our newsletter Earlier this year, Taylor Swift filed trademark applications covering the phrases "Hey, it's Taylor" and
"Hey, it's Taylor Swift" two recordings closely associated with her voice
and personal brand. Around the same time, actor Matthew McConaughey sought trademark protection for some of his most recognizable catchphrases.

These cases highlight an important question in the AI era, what rights do people actually have over their voice? And this isnt a theoretical issue. People tend to focus on the image and video generation capabilities of AI,
but AI voice cloning tools can now recreate a person's voice from just a few minutes of audio. While platforms like ElevenLabs and Suno have helped make synthetic voices and AI-generated audio more accessible than ever. Latest Videos From Watch full video here:

For celebrities, the stakes are really clear. A distinctive voice can be a valuable part of a personal brand and a source of income. But this technology doesn't just affect public figures anymore. Now, anyone with audio recordings online could potentially have their voice copied, cloned or imitated.

The problem is one weve touched on repeatedly in our reporting on AI. Which
is that the law hasnt caught up to the tech yet. Existing laws around copyright, trademarks, privacy and publicity rights were largely created before AI-generated voices became possible at scale. You may like Taylor
Swift files trademarks to protect her voice and image from AI misuse Adobe's legal chief calls for creator protection as policymakers and tech companies reframe copyright in the era of AI Study finds people are starting to fear sounding like AI

As a result, many of today's biggest questions don't have straightforward answers, and the rules vary significantly depending on where you live too.

So where do we stand right now? What protections do ordinary people actually have if their voice is cloned or used without permission? And are lawmakers beginning to adapt to a world where a voice can be replicated in minutes? To find out, I spoke to legal experts specializing in technology, intellectual property and AI law. Get daily insight, inspiration and deals in your inbox Sign up for breaking news, reviews, opinion, top tech deals, and more.
Contact me with news and offers from other Future brands Receive email from
us on behalf of our trusted partners or sponsors By submitting your information you agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy and are aged 16 or over. What does the law say? Dr Edina Harbinja is an Associate Professor in Law at the University of Birmingham, specializing in digital rights and the regulation of emerging technologies. I asked her if I can ever really own my voice and she says theres not a simple answer.

A recording of a voice can be protected by copyright and related rights, and
a performance may attract performers rights, she explains. But the voice itself is usually not owned in the same way as a song, a sound recording, or
a written work.

Professor Andres Guadamuz , an expert in intellectual property and
technology law at the University of Sussex, largely agrees. What to read next Voice is the next cybersecurity battleground, and AI is accelerating the risk The thing I dislike most about AI is exactly what some users love Regulation by litigation is often overlooked as a regulatory tool: Just how much responsibility should AI companies have on their users wellbeing?

"In the UK the answer is no, you don't own your own voice," he tells me. "There are several possible ways to try to get around this, but the real answer is that there is no good legal recourse if someone uses your voice to train an AI, particularly if they have legal access to the voice."

Harbinja tells me that ownership isnt necessarily the most useful way to
think about the issue. The harder issue is whether an AI-generated voice that sounds like a person appropriates their identity, falsely implies
endorsement, or misleads the public, she says.

In other words, the legal question may be less about ownership and more about whether a cloned voice causes harm, deception or misrepresentation. But even then, what happens next depends heavily on where you live.

In the US, this is often framed through the right of publicity, false endorsement, and impersonation-style claims, Harbinja says. She points to the case of Midler v. Ford Motor Co . In which singer Bette Midler successfully objected to Ford using a soundalike singer in an advert.

There are also newer US initiatives, including the proposed NO FAKES Act,
move more directly towards protecting voice and likeness against unauthorized digital replies.

But the UK takes a different approach. In the UK, there is no general right
to own ones voice, image, or persona, she tells me. The most relevant routes are passing off performers rights, misuse of private information, data protection, defamation, contract, and sometimes trade marks. But these are patchwork protections.

One possible route is passing off, which protects businesses and individuals from misrepresentation that could damage their reputation or falsely suggest commercial endorsement.

Guadamuz points to passing off as one of the few existing legal routes available in some circumstances.

"If a person has a reputation, they could use passing-off, which is a way to stop people from profiting from your image," he says. However, he notes that its application is limited and has historically been used more often for images than voices.

Harbinja says that the challenge here is that AI voice cloning doesnt fit nearly into a single legal category.

AI voice imitation can be a form of impersonation, but the legal label
depends on the jurisdiction and context: false endorsement, personality infringement, data processing, unfair competition, performers rights, or consumer deception, she says.

The legal framework also varies depending on whether the person is a
celebrity or performer.

So, you may own the recording, the song, or the mark, but you do not necessarily 'own' the sound of yourself in a simple copyright sense, she
says. AI voice imitation exposes the gap between laws protecting works and laws protecting persons. AI presents unique problems Harbinja explains AI complicates things because there are two major enforcement problems to consider.

The first is a training problem. Models may be trained on vast collections of online recordings, songs, interviews, performances, and videos. Rights
holders often do not know whether their material was used, where training occurred, or whether a legally relevant copy was made in a jurisdiction where they can sue, Harbinja tells me.

The second problem is output. If an AI output sounds like Taylor Swift but does not reproduce a substantial part of a protected recording or song, copyright may not be the best route, she says. That is why the debate is shifting from copyright alone to voice, likeness, personality, publicity, consent, transparency, and digital replica regulation.

She says this is why the Taylor Swift example is proving to be so
interesting. Because although trade mark and brand protection strategies can work in commercial contexts, they dont solve the bigger issue of unauthorized AI imitation.

Guadamuz says enforcement remains one of the biggest practical obstacles. "There is no protection in the UK, some in other countries, but it is almost impossible to enforce at the moment. Only the most egregious examples of cloning could be actioned, he tells me. (Image credit: Getty Images / FabrikaCr) The future of the law Is the law changing to accommodate new technologies? Yes, but slowly.

AI transparency laws are emerging, Harbinja tells me. The EU AI Act does not create a property right in ones voice, but Article 50 imposes transparency obligations for certain AI interactions and deepfakes/synthetic content, including synthetic audio.

Guadamuz believes new legislation will ultimately be needed. "For the most part we need new legislation that specifically protects voices," he says.

He notes that UK policymakers have already discussed protections against deepfakes and digital replicas, which could eventually extend to AI-generated voice clones.

However, Harbinja argues that the debate here shouldnt focus exclusively on ownership.

The deeper theoretical and moral question is whether voice, likeness and persona should be governed primarily as property, or instead through concepts of dignity, personhood, identity and autonomy, she says. My own view is that the latter provides the more appropriate starting point, especially where AI systems do not merely copy a marketable asset but simulate a person.

What Harbinja got me thinking about is how often we treat AI as just another technology to regulate. Another tool, another platform, another legal problem to solve.

But the rise of AI voice cloning suggests something more complicated is happening. These aren't just questions about copyright, trademarks or data protection. They're questions about identity, authenticity and personhood.

After all, a voice isn't just a piece of data. It's one of the ways we recognize each other. It's tied to our relationships, our memories and our sense of self.

As AI becomes increasingly capable of imitating not just what we create but who we are, the challenge for lawmakers goes beyond deciding what can be
owned and becomes about whether we should ever treat parts of a person as property in the first place. Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds. The best TVs for all budgets Our top picks, based on real-world testing and comparisons

Read our full guide to the best TVs 1. Best overall: LG C5 2. Best under 1000: US: Hisense U8QG UK: TCL C7K 3. Best under 500: US: Roku Plus Series
UK: TCL C6K



======================================================================
Link to news story: https://www.techradar.com/ai-platforms-assistants/your-voice-can-be-cloned-in- minutes-using-ai-and-taylor-swift-is-trying-to-protect-hers-but-what-rights-do -the-rest-of-us-have


--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 (Linux/64)
* Origin: tqwNet Technology News (1337:1/100)