14 May 2026
Taylor Swift has moved to trade mark her voice as concerns over AI voice cloning intensify, with the music industry still grappling with how easily an artist’s voice can now be replicated without consent.
Dr Basak Bak, from the 桃色视频 School of Law, provides expert comment on the issue, drawing on her expertise in intellectual property and data protection law. For interviews, contact the 桃色视频 press office.
Dr Basak Bak said: “Taylor Swift’s application has been widely framed as innovative. Yet it may reflect less a genuine innovation in trade mark law than an attempt to use trade mark protection to address problems it was never designed to resolve. The human voice does not fit as neatly within the trade mark framework as more conventional sound marks. To understand why, it is important to consider the traditional function of trade mark law.
“The trade mark system is built around a relatively simple premise: a trade mark functions as a source identifier by indicating the commercial origin of a product or service. Sound marks are well recognised in trade mark law, and they tend to succeed when they involve fixed and repeatable elements such as jingles or short sound sequences. In that sense, Swift’s two trade mark applications for audio clips of her saying “Hey, it’s Taylor” and “Hey, it’s Taylor Swift” are not entirely unprecedented. The real question is whether trade mark law is now being used to address harms associated with AI-driven identity replication rather than its traditional function of distinguishing commercial origin.
“Voice cloning technologies are making it alarmingly easy to replicate someone’s voice. The human voice constitutes a deeply personal and recognisable aspect of identity, which helps explain why artists are increasingly seeking legal protection in this area. If courts accept claims like this, artists could, in theory, gain greater control over unauthorised AI-generated imitations of their voices. Such protection would respond to a genuine concern.
“At the same time, trade mark law was developed to regulate commercial origin, not to regulate questions of personal identity in the age of AI. Once the human voice starts being treated as a commercial asset, the line between personal and commercial identity becomes increasingly difficult to maintain. Expanding protection in this way risks turning deeply personal characteristics into commercial property. There is also a wider concern about where this could lead, particularly if trade mark protection begins to limit the space for parody, tribute, and creative inspiration that have traditionally fallen outside the core focus of trade mark law.
“If Swift succeeds, the real impact may not be a clean solution but a messy precedent. It may offer some leverage against unauthorised voice cloning, but at the cost of stretching trade mark law beyond its limits. What this ultimately exposes is not simply a trade mark dispute, but a deeper regulatory gap. The law is still struggling to respond to AI technologies that can easily imitate a person’s voice and identity.”
Picture CC-BY-SA 2.0
We are in the process of finalising our postgraduate taught courses for 2027/28 entry. In the meantime, you can view our 2026/27 courses.
