Who Owns a Persona? AI Harms, UK Liability, and the US Push to Trademark Voice and Likeness

AI, Persona, and the New Legal Perimeter

Artificial intelligence is creating a new category of legal risk: responsibility, attribution, control, and definition. The fight is moving from "who caused the harm" to "what exactly is being protected." That definition piece matters because synthetic media can now replicate a person's identity at scale.

We are being forced to answer a simple but loaded question: what, in law, is a "persona"? Which attributes of identity are protectable, and which remedies bite when that identity is cloned by machines?

The definition problem: what counts as a persona?

Think beyond name and face. Voice, likeness, signature phrases, gestures, biometric patterns, and even stylistic "feel" can be stitched into convincing deepfakes. The more these attributes become machine-readable, the more they look like assets that need clear boundaries.

That is the pivot: draw the perimeter early, or fight about responsibility after the damage spreads.

UKJT's position: private law already has the tools

In England and Wales, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce argues that existing private law can handle AI-enabled harms. Fault, causation, and responsibility can still be applied, even when a system's internal logic is opaque and the evidence is hard to parse.

Their draft Legal Statement outlines how to run these cases without ripping up the rulebook. Read it here: UKJT consultation on liability for AI harms.

U.S. practice: trademarks for front-loaded control

In the United States, a different move is taking shape. Reports suggest Matthew McConaughey is seeking trademark registrations tied to his voice, likeness, and related indicia. The goal is clear: convert messy, case-by-case personality and misappropriation claims into a structured, registration-backed IP position.

This treats identity elements as commercial assets that can be policed through familiar trademark mechanics. For busy rights-holders, that feels faster, clearer, and more scalable than post-harm litigation.

Productive tension: doctrine after harm vs definition before use

These two approaches are not opposites; they answer different client demands. The Taskforce speaks to doctrinal capacity: courts can allocate responsibility once harm is shown. The trademark route speaks to operational need: define protectable subject matter now, then enforce against unauthorized synthetic uses.

The quote that sums up market sentiment: "We want to create a clear perimeter around ownership with consent and attribution the norm in an AI world."

Jurisdiction still matters, but platforms make it porous

England and Wales and the United States take different doctrinal paths on personality and image. Yet synthetic media circulates globally, and platforms respond to clear, registered rights faster than to complex tort theories. High-profile strategies in one jurisdiction often set expectations elsewhere.

What counsel should do now

• Map the persona: Inventory protectable attributes (name, likeness, voice, signature phrases, stylized visuals, motion patterns). Document first use and commercial goodwill.
• Choose the front door: Where feasible, file trademark applications covering name, voice tags, catchphrases, logos, and merchandise classes. Use specimens that tie identity to goods/services. See USPTO trademark basics.
• Contract for consent and attribution: Bake in model, talent, and influencer releases that include synthetic uses, voice cloning, fine-tuning, and derivative training. Make revocation, geographic scope, and model versioning explicit.
• Platform playbook: Pre-draft notices for takedowns and impersonation claims. Maintain a registry of official handles, domains, and voiceprints to speed verification.
• Evidence and provenance: Preserve originals, timestamps, and chain-of-custody for authentic works. Where possible, attach provenance metadata or watermarks to official content.
• Insurance review: Check coverage for AI-enabled impersonation, media liability, and business interruption from reputational harm.
• Choice-of-law and venue: Build selection clauses into licenses, platform terms, and influencer agreements. Anticipate cross-border enforcement and parallel proceedings.
• Remedies matrix: For the UK, prepare negligence, product liability, and misuse routes aligned with UKJT analysis. For the US, pair right of publicity, false endorsement, unfair competition, and trademark claims.
• Escalation thresholds: Define when to send a platform notice, a demand letter, or file suit. Align with PR response to contain amplification.

Working model: two-track protection

• Track 1 - Define early: Register what you can. Standardize consent and attribution in every deal. Make identity legible to platforms through clear, documented rights.
• Track 2 - Allocate after harm: Build the factual and forensic spine for causation and fault. Preserve logs, prompts, and model interaction records where accessible. Prepare to litigate where opacity complicates proof.

Why this matters

Technology multiplies replication. That tilts demand toward mechanisms that set the perimeter upfront and support predictable, cross-platform enforcement. Courts can still do the doctrinal work, but clients want speed and certainty first.

The practical path is simple: define the persona, register what is registrable, contract for consent, and keep a clean evidential trail. Then you have both levers-fast takedowns and solid claims-when synthetic copies appear overnight.