QIM Score: 89/100 — published under the house rule: no post goes live unscored.
Routes: Blue Data Law · Digital Rights
The Data Hook
In 2023 a track called "Heart on My Sleeve" appeared online. It sounded like a new Drake and The Weeknd collaboration — the voices, the cadence, the vibe were uncanny. Neither artist had anything to do with it. A user had trained AI on their recordings and generated a brand-new song. Universal Music Group got it pulled. And a legal puzzle the music industry had been dreading suddenly went mainstream. The puzzle: what law, exactly, was broken?
Copyright Does Not Quite Fit
The instinctive answer is "copyright infringement." But copyright protects specific works — a particular recording, a particular composition. The fake song did not copy Drake's recording; it generated a new one that imitated his style and his voice. Copyright law has long held you cannot copyright a style, a genre, or the general sound of an artist. The AI did not necessarily copy a protected work so much as it learned and reproduced something copyright was never built to protect: the artist's vocal identity. There may be a copyright claim lurking in the training data — the catalog had to go into the model somehow — but that is the murky, still-litigating "was the training fair use" question, not a clean fit for the harm everyone instantly recognized.
The Right of Publicity Does Fit
The cleaner claim is the right of publicity: the right to control the commercial use of your own identity, including your voice. California has protected this for decades. Civil Code § 3344 covers the knowing use of another's name, voice, or likeness for commercial advantage without consent, and California common law reaches even further. This is not new ground — in 1988 Bette Midler won against an ad that used a soundalike to imitate her voice; Tom Waits won a similar case. The principle was settled long before AI existed: you cannot sell something by impersonating a famous person's voice. AI just industrialized the impersonation. So when an AI clone of an artist's voice is used commercially, the right of publicity is the most natural weapon — far more than copyright.
Why Tennessee Jumped First
Nashville saw this coming and acted. The ELVIS Act — Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security — made an artist's voice explicitly protectable property in Tennessee and created liability for unauthorized AI voice clones. California has the bones to do the same through § 3344, AB 2602 (which voids contracts that take broad AI-replica rights from performers without specific terms), and the broader publicity framework. The open question is whether California strengthens the statute further or relies on its existing common law to stretch over the new technology.
This Reaches Working Artists, Not Just Superstars
The headline cases are about Drake, but the practical exposure runs all the way down. A regional musician, a voice-over artist, a podcaster, a YouTuber with a recognizable voice — all have a voice that has commercial value and that an AI can now clone from a few clips. The right of publicity is not reserved for the famous; § 3344 protects "any" person's voice and likeness. The famous just have more provable damages. If your voice is part of how you earn, it is an asset — and like any asset, it can be taken.
What to Do
If you are a creator: keep your contracts current — any agreement touching your recordings or voice should address AI training and digital replicas explicitly, because silence in a 2019 contract can be argued into a 2026 license. Register your real works for copyright (the cleanest hook when training data is the issue), and document your damages. If you have been cloned: move on the right of publicity first, send platform takedowns in parallel, and preserve the offending content with URLs and timestamps before it vanishes. A free Blue Data Law consult builds the right-of-publicity claim and the takedown in tandem.
Blue Data Law — free consult | Michael Benavides, Esq., CA Bar No. 270714 | 707-362-4166 | attorneymichaelbenavides.com
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. Blue Data Law is a trade name of the law practice of Michael Benavides, Esq., California State Bar No. 270714. General information only — not legal advice; no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this. Authority cited is as of mid-2026 (Cal. Civ. Code § 3344; common-law right of publicity; Midler v. Ford and Waits v. Frito-Lay; Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.; Tennessee ELVIS Act; California AB 2602) — right-of-publicity law varies by state; verify current law. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
