AI-generated impersonation is real, and it’s a problem. No question.
The legal challenge is identifying existing bodies of law to support claims and provide meaningful remedies. Copyright? Contract? Unfair competition? Privacy? Publicity? Kind of, but none of those fit the facts very well. All are like forcing a round peg into a square hole.
Recently, celebrities have started filing applications for US trademark registration to see if trademark…maybe…could be useful on this front. That’s all it is: a “maybe.” They’re testing the waters because…why not? Give it a shot.
There are many reasons why the trademark route is likely to fail. Like those adjacent fields of law, it was simply not created with this problem in mind and it is not well suited to be the solution. I applaud the efforts. We need to push boundaries to define the extent to which old law can solve new problems. But I don’t think this particular tactic is going to work.
Meanwhile, though — and this is what prompts me to post — lawyers on LinkedIn are losing their minds over the celebrity trademark efforts. They scream about how this is going to be a game-changer; trademark is going to take on a whole new purpose; it’s going to be the salvation against AI-impersonation. It’s not. The celebrity applications are test cases. Registrations will probably issue, but their utility in actual practice is likely to be minimal.
So why are the lawyers being so vocal?
- Because celebrities are involved
- Because they want to be the harbingers of big news (so they inflate what really is not big news)
- Because celebrities are involved
If AI-generated impersonation is important to you, a better use of time would be to focus on what might actually work. On the tech side, investigate “attribution engines.” Legally, support legislation such as the NO FAKES Act and other efforts to establish a federal right of publicity.
And try to filter out the noise.