Taylor Swift Files to Trademark Her Voice and Likeness, Apparently to Protect Against AI Misuse

In a bold move to safeguard her identity against the rising tide of artificial intelligence, pop superstar Taylor Swift has adopted a legal strategy previously pioneered by actor Matthew McConaughey. On April 24, Swift’s company submitted three trademark applications to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Two of these are sound marks designed to protect her vocal identity: one covers the greeting “Hey, it’s Taylor Swift,” while the other secures “Hey, it’s Taylor.” The third application is a visual trademark for a specific image—a photograph of Swift holding a pink guitar with a black strap, dressed in a multi-colored iridescent bodysuit and silver boots, standing on a pink stage in front of a multi-colored microphone with purple lights illuminating the background. These filings, which target the core elements of her public persona, come at a time when celebrities are increasingly alarmed by AI’s capacity to replicate voices and images without authorization, a threat exacerbated by the rapid advancement of generative AI tools. Swift, whose 2023 Eras Tour became the first to gross over $1 billion, has long been a trailblazer in protecting her creative work, and this move extends that vigilance into the digital frontier.

The applications were filed on behalf of Swift’s TAS Rights Management and were flagged by Josh Gerben, an intellectual-property attorney at Gerben IP. Gerben observed that these actions reflect a deepening unease among entertainment figures about AI’s potential to exploit their voices and likenesses without consent. Variety has reached out to Swift’s representatives and Rebecca Liebowitz, a partner at Venable law firm listed on the applications, for comment. Historically, trademarks have not been used to protect an individual’s general persona or voice. However, the legal rationale behind McConaughey’s approach suggests that such protections could provide additional remedies beyond traditional right-of-publicity claims, particularly in combating AI-generated content that misappropriates someone’s identity. Swift’s likeness has already been misused in numerous AI-generated fakes, including by Meta’s AI chatbots and in pornographic images circulating online. Furthermore, ahead of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump shared AI-generated images falsely implying Swift had endorsed him. For context, Swift has been a vocal advocate for artists’ rights, famously battling her former record label, Big Machine Records, over ownership of her master recordings—a dispute that reshaped the music industry’s approach to contracts and artist autonomy. This latest move, experts say, extends that fight into the digital realm, where unauthorized use of her image has become a persistent problem. As one entertainment lawyer noted, “Swift is essentially building a legal fortress around her brand, anticipating threats that didn’t exist a decade ago.”

Swift’s trademark filings follow a path blazed by McConaughey’s legal team. In 2025, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office granted eight trademarks to the actor, including a sound mark for his iconic line “Alright, alright, alright!” from the 1993 film “Dazed and Confused,” along with audio and video clips. The lawyers behind McConaughey’s “trademark yourself” strategy believe it provides an additional legal tool to challenge AI-generated replicas that capitalize on his image without permission. While states like New York and California already have right-of-publicity laws barring unauthorized commercial use of a person’s likeness, trademark infringement cases can be filed in federal court—a potentially stronger deterrent since they apply nationwide. In a blog post, Gerben explained how Swift’s trademark strategy could defend her name, image, and likeness rights. “Theoretically, if a lawsuit were to be filed over an AI using Swift’s voice, she could claim that any use of her voice that sounds like the registered trademark violates her trademark rights,” he wrote. The image-based filing, he added, “serves a similar purpose. By protecting a distinctive visual, down to Swift’s commonly worn jumpsuit and pose, Swift’s team may gain additional grounds to pursue claims against manipulated or AI-generated images that evoke her likeness.” This approach, while untested in court, could set a precedent for how other celebrities shield themselves from digital impersonation, potentially reshaping entertainment law. For instance, if successful, it might prompt a wave of similar filings from artists like Beyoncé or BTS, who also face rampant digital impersonation.

The “trademark yourself” approach has not yet been fully tested in court regarding AI, but in theory, it could allow artists to issue takedown claims against AI platforms, akin to how studios enforce copyrights. For example, in December 2025, Disney sent a cease-and-desist letter to Google, alleging its Gemini AI platform was used to illegally generate copies of dozens of its trademarked characters; Google removed the offending videos by the next day. This case illustrates how trademark law might be leveraged against AI-generated content, even as the technology evolves. Gerben concluded, “Ultimately, Taylor Swift and Matthew McConaughey’s recent trademark filings are testing new theories on how trademark law will work in the AI age.” This strategy, while innovative, raises questions about the balance between protecting intellectual property and the evolving capabilities of generative AI, which can now mimic voices and images with unsettling accuracy. As legal experts debate its efficacy, Swift’s move signals a broader shift among high-profile figures to preemptively fortify their rights against digital impersonation, potentially inspiring other artists to follow suit in an era where AI blurs the line between authenticity and fabrication. The outcome of these filings could ultimately define how the entertainment industry navigates the complex intersection of celebrity, technology, and law in the years to come.