Can You Trademark Your Voice? Taylor Swift and Matthew McConaughey Are Testing Opposite Answers

Kate Talbot is a social media expert witness who has worked 15+ cases across 10+ law firms involving Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, and X.

You can register your voice as a sound mark with the USPTO, and both Taylor Swift and Matthew McConaughey have now done exactly that. They are using the same legal tool for opposite strategies, and neither approach has been tested in court.

I recently spoke at and attended the New York Intellectual Property Conference, and one panel had me intrigued and wanting to learn more. The panelists shared how they're guiding clients on AI and likeness rights. Not theoretical advice. Actionable steps for this year.

I've worked on IP cases with firms like Fish & Richardson and Knobbe Martens, and my declarations are filed with the USPTO. Still, I sat there taking copious notes, because this topic hits three things I care about most: influencers, celebrities, and AI.

Two examples came up that I can't stop thinking about.

What did Matthew McConaughey do to protect his voice from AI?

He registered his voice as a trademark, and then he licensed it. In 2025, Matthew McConaughey secured eight trademarks, including a sound mark for his line, "Alright, alright, alright." His attorneys said the trademarks protect his voice and likeness from unauthorized AI use while leaving room to license them in the future.

That second part is critical.

Trademark law is quietly becoming part of AI strategy. Five years ago, these filings would have looked like standard brand protection. Today, they look like the foundation for licensing, authentication, or litigation.

McConaughey also partnered with ElevenLabs, an AI audio company, to license his voice. He's using it to release a Spanish-language version of his newsletter, and he has invested in the company.

He's not just protecting his voice. He's turning it into a revenue stream and gaining equity along the way.

What did Taylor Swift do to protect her voice from AI?

She filed the same kind of trademark, with no licensing deal attached. In April, Taylor Swift's company filed three trademark applications: two sound marks for her voice, "Hey, it's Taylor Swift" and "Hey, it's Taylor," and a visual mark of her performing with a pink guitar.

Swift has been on the other side of this equation.

Her likeness has already been used in unauthorized AI creations, including explicit content she never approved.

Same tool. No toll booth.

Why are Taylor Swift and Matthew McConaughey making different choices?

They are selling different things. Both approaches are logical, but they reflect different priorities.

McConaughey is building a toll booth. He's licensing his voice to reach new audiences and generate revenue. His voice is a product, and there's upside in saying yes.

Swift is building a wall. Her younger audience values trust, and her brand depends on authenticity. If fans can't tell whether something is genuinely hers, it's more than a licensing issue.

It cuts to the heart of what she represents.

Swift is also a prime target for AI replication, given the sheer volume of public audio and video of her available to train on. Her strategy reflects the scale of that risk.

Another layer worth considering: celebrities who invest in the AI companies licensing their likenesses aren't just protecting their brand. They're adding credibility to the platform itself, influencing valuations and attention in ways we're still figuring out.

Why doesn't NIL protect against AI deepfakes?

NIL stands for name, image, and likeness. It was designed for simpler times, when harm meant someone using your face on a billboard without permission. You could point to the original and prove the misuse.

Generative AI complicates this. It can create a convincing fake video of an endorsement without a person ever stepping in front of a camera. Nothing was taken. It was made. The legal frameworks we have weren't built for that.

Trademark filings stand out here for a reason. Federal trademark law offers tools that state right-of-publicity claims don't, including nationwide reach. But trademarks for spoken voices remain untested in court. Neither Swift's strategy nor McConaughey's has played out yet. Everyone is navigating uncharted territory, and the lawyers closest to it say so.

What should celebrities and influencers do about AI likeness rights?

Celebrities, athletes, and influencers now face a choice.

Will you license your likeness, as McConaughey did, and control the revenue from replicas?

Or will you lock it down, as Swift is trying to, ensuring your voice's value comes from authenticity?

There's no clear answer. It depends on what you're selling, your audience, and how much of your value is authenticity versus reach.

But doing nothing is a choice too. For most people, it's the default while they wait for the law to catch up.

Why this matters to me

I have worked on 15+ social media expert witness matters across 10+ law firms involving intellectual property, employment, personal injury, defamation, and criminal cases, across Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, and X. Nearly every engagement has come down to understanding how content moved through a platform, who likely saw it, and what actually happened online.

That work is changing.

Influencers drive most brand relationships online, yet they have far less legal protection than actors or musicians. Few have trademark strategies at all. When synthetic versions of influencers start appearing in feeds selling products they never endorsed, the disputes will center on consumer confusion, platform mechanics, and digital evidence. Those are the areas I spend my career analyzing.

For years, the question in my cases has been: what did a real person post? When did they post it? Who saw it? How far did it travel?

Increasingly, I think the first question will be more fundamental.

Was there a real person behind it at all?

Frequently Asked Questions

Can you trademark your voice?

Yes. The USPTO allows registration of sound marks, which can cover a spoken phrase in a specific voice. Matthew McConaughey secured a sound mark on "Alright, alright, alright" in 2025, and Taylor Swift's company filed sound mark applications on "Hey, it's Taylor Swift" and "Hey, it's Taylor" in April 2026. However, using a voice trademark to stop AI-generated replicas has not yet

been tested in court.

What is the difference between NIL rights and a trademark for your voice?

NIL (name, image, and likeness) rights are generally governed by state right-of-publicity law and were designed to address unauthorized commercial use of an existing image or recording. A federal trademark registration offers nationwide protection and a different set of enforcement tools. Public figures are increasingly filing trademarks because NIL frameworks were not built for generative AI, which creates synthetic content rather than copying an original.

How does AI change social media evidence in litigation?

Historically, social media evidence analysis focused on what a real person posted, when, who saw it, and how far it traveled. As AI-generated voice, video, and images become more common, the threshold question increasingly becomes whether a real person created the content at all. Disputes involving synthetic influencer content are likely to turn on consumer confusion, platform mechanics, and digital evidence interpretation.

Do influencers have the same likeness protections as celebrities?

In principle influencers have the same right-of-publicity protections, but in practice they have far less legal infrastructure. Most influencers have no trademark strategy, no likeness licensing terms, and limited enforcement resources, despite carrying a large share of brand relationships on social platforms. That gap is likely to become a significant source of litigation as AI-generated influencer content increases.