A label-signed artist typically transfers ownership of their voice print as part of the deal, while in the US there is no general right to trademark your face or voice. What protections — the No Fakes Act, statutory voice rights, contractual carve-outs — would actually give an artist meaningful control over their AI-cloned likeness?
To gain meaningful control over AI-cloned likenesses, artists must navigate a multi-tiered framework of union protections, state-level property rights, biometric privacy laws, and federal trade statutes Verified Answer #1, Verified Answer #2. Because traditional copyright protects fixed recordings rather than vocal timbre, and trademark law does not grant a generic right to own a face or voice, these specific mechanisms provide the primary legal leverage for performers Verified Answer #1, Verified Answer #3.
Collective bargaining agreements provide immediate practical protections by restricting how labels use digital replicas Verified Answer #4. The SAG-AFTRA 2024 Sound Recordings Code requires labels to obtain "clear and conspicuous consent" and provide minimum compensation before releasing recordings that use a digital voice replica Verified Answer #4. This agreement also defines "artist" and "singer" as strictly human, preventing labels from substituting AI clones to fulfill contractual obligations Verified Answer #4. Further protections were established in the June 2026 TV/Theatrical Agreement, which implements strict limits to prevent human performers from being displaced by AI-generated characters Verified Answer #1.
State laws have emerged to void broad contractual language that previously allowed labels to seize digital replica rights Verified Answer #1. California’s AB 2602, effective January 1, 2025, serves as a safeguard by voiding provisions in entertainment services agreements that attempt to grant rights to digital replicas without specific, negotiated terms Verified Answer #1.
Artists are increasingly using the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) to target the data-gathering process of AI training Verified Answer #2. Because BIPA treats a "voiceprint" as a unique biometric identifier, artists can sue for the unauthorized collection and storage of their vocal data Verified Answer #2. As a privacy statute rather than an intellectual property law, BIPA allows artists to circumvent "fair use" defenses and potentially force the deletion of underlying training data Verified Answer #2.
While a voice cannot be strictly trademarked, Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act allows artists to sue for "false endorsement" if an AI clone creates consumer confusion regarding their sponsorship or affiliation Verified Answer #3. However, this protection is context-dependent; it generally only applies when the clone acts as a marketing signal or source identifier, rather than just a component of a generative AI product Verified Answer #3.