Hey, You Can’t Do That!

Speaking into microphone.

getty

There has been a batch of agita successful 2026 from group objecting to the usage of their image, voice, story, music, aliases sculpture without permission. Here is simply a summary of the 2026 developments:

1. Hey, That’s My Voice! Several people actions were revenge by broadcast reporters, podcasters, narrators, and sound actors against Google and different tech companies for utilizing the plaintiffs’ voices to train their AI systems. The cases allege 3 different claims: (a) usurpation of authorities laws that prohibit the usage of someone’s biometric information (including voice) without consent, (b) usurpation of their correct of publicity owed to output that sounds for illustration them, and (c) usurpation of their correct of publicity by simply uploading their voices. The past declare is analogous to the galore claims alleging copyright infringement owed to uploading copyrighted contented by AI companies, and it will beryllium absorbing to spot if the adjacent usage defense being utilized successful specified cases will beryllium applied by affinity to these caller correct of publicity cases.
2. Hey, That’s My Face! Dua Lipa sued Samsung for $15 cardinal for including her easy recognizable look connected packaging for TV screens without her permission. She is suing for some usurpation of her correct of publicity and nether the Lanham Act for falsely implying that she endorsed the merchandise by including her image connected the package.
3. Hey, That’s My Dad! The children of deceased shot fable Roberto Clemente sued Puerto Rico for issuing a commemorative licence sheet base his sanction and likeness.
4. Hey, That’s My Story! Two Miami sheriff deputies revenge a suit for defamation against the accumulation institution owned by Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, claiming the actors’ portrayal successful a movie called “Rip” made the deputies look for illustration “dirty cops.” The difficult portion of the suit for the deputies is that (a) they were not named successful the movie and (b) though the movie had a title paper stating that it was “inspired by existent events,” it was intelligibly a melodramatic fictionalization, and to beryllium defamation, the defamatory statements must beryllium reasonably understood to beryllium statements of fact.
5. Hey, That’s My Trademark! In an effort to sidestep the foibles and uncertainties of relying connected the correct of publicity nether authorities law, Taylor Swift revenge trademarks of (a) her sound saying, “Hey, it’s Taylor Swift” and (b) a image of herself performing. By doing so, she is pursuing successful the footsteps of Matthew McConaughey, who antecedently revenge trademarks for his signature sound and catchphrases. While I applaud the effort to protect sound and likeness nether azygous national rule (as opposed to the spotty patchwork of authorities law), trademark rule conscionable doesn’t do the trick, since each it protects against is user disorder arsenic to the root of a merchandise aliases service, not conscionable the unauthorized usage of someone’s sound aliases image for immoderate different purpose, specified arsenic successful an AI-generated audio-visual work. Alas, that is near to the correct of publicity, which is taxable to a number of questionable defenses. What this effort points to is the request for a national correct of publicity statute, for illustration the languishing NO FAKES bill.
6. Hey, That’s My Music! The American Federation of Musicians (“AFM”) sued 2 ample grounds companies for not paying AFM musicians a stock of gross the grounds companies received for licensing euphony created by the musicians to AI companies for the AI companies to usage to licence customers to “create” their ain music. The AFM sued for breach of contract, claiming that the grounds companies were contractually required to compensate the musicians for immoderate “new use” of their euphony and that the licence of the euphony to AI companies was a “new use.”
7. Hey, That’s My Sculpture! A sculpture creator sued a sculpture plot for removing and destroying a sculpture the creator had created for the sculpture garden. The creator is suing for conversion, negligence, breach of contract, and usurpation of the national Visual Artists Rights A