Beyond Scarlett's Shadow: A Playbook for Creating Legally Defensible and Ethically Sound AI Brand Voices

The advent of sophisticated generative AI has unlocked unprecedented opportunities for brand engagement, none more personal or powerful than the development of a unique AI brand voice. This technology promises to create consistent, scalable, and deeply engaging auditory experiences across every customer touchpoint. However, the recent controversy involving OpenAI and Scarlett Johansson cast a long, cautionary shadow over the industry, highlighting the immense legal and ethical minefields that await unprepared brands. The incident served as a public masterclass on the perils of voice cloning, the complexities of personality rights, and the reputational fallout from perceived unethical practices. For marketing executives, legal counsel, and AI product managers, the message is clear: innovation cannot come at the expense of integrity. Navigating this new frontier requires more than just advanced algorithms; it demands a robust, proactive playbook for creating an AI voice that is not only compelling but also legally defensible and ethically sound.

The High Stakes of Synthetic Voice: Why Your Brand Needs a Playbook Now

In the digital age, a brand's voice is a cornerstone of its identity. It's the auditory equivalent of a logo, a color palette, and a mission statement all rolled into one. It builds familiarity, conveys personality, and fosters emotional connection. The prospect of creating a synthetic voice—one that is perfectly on-brand, available 24/7, and capable of personalizing interactions at scale—is incredibly alluring. Imagine an AI assistant that embodies your brand's helpfulness, a marketing campaign narrated with consistent warmth, or an interactive product guide that speaks with reassuring authority. The potential to enhance customer experience and streamline operations is immense.

However, the risks are equally significant and are growing more complex by the day. The core of the problem lies in the deeply personal nature of the human voice. It is intrinsically linked to our identity. When a company creates a synthetic voice, particularly one that mimics or even vaguely resembles a real person without their explicit consent, it steps into a legal and ethical quagmire. The potential consequences are severe and multifaceted. Litigation, stemming from claims of right of publicity infringement or copyright violation, can result in crippling financial penalties and injunctions. The reputational damage can be even more devastating. In an era of heightened consumer awareness, being labeled as a company that unethically exploits personal likenesses can erode decades of brand trust overnight. This damage can alienate customers, deter potential talent, and attract unwanted regulatory scrutiny. Therefore, the question is no longer *if* your brand should have a strategy for its AI brand voice, but *how* to build one that is resilient, responsible, and ready for the future.

Deconstructing the Legal Risks: Copyright, Publicity Rights, and 'Sound-Alikes'

The legal framework governing synthetic voices is a patchwork of established laws being applied to novel situations. To create a legally defensible AI voice, leaders must understand three critical areas of risk: copyright law, the right of publicity, and the dangerous territory of 'sound-alike' claims.

Copyright Law: Can a Voice Be Owned?

A common misconception is that a person's voice itself can be copyrighted. In the United States, copyright law does not protect the intrinsic quality or sound of a voice. As the U.S. Copyright Office has clarified, a voice is considered a physical attribute, not a creative work of authorship. However, what *is* protected is the specific *recording* of that voice. A sound recording is a copyrightable work. This means you cannot legally train an AI model on copyrighted audio—such as audiobooks, movie dialogue, or podcast episodes—without obtaining a license from the copyright holder(s) of those recordings. Doing so constitutes clear copyright infringement.

The legal complexity deepens when considering the output of the AI model. Who owns the copyright to the newly generated synthetic speech? Is it the company that developed the AI, the user who provided the prompt, or does it depend on the training data? Current legal precedent is still evolving, but the prevailing view, reinforced by rulings such as the one against Stephen Thaler's AI-generated art, is that works created without human authorship cannot be copyrighted. This presents a challenge for brands wanting to protect their unique synthetic voice as a core intellectual property asset. The most effective strategy is to ensure the voice is created through a clear chain of human creativity and licensed work, for instance, by basing it on the voice of a human actor under a comprehensive work-for-hire agreement that transfers all possible rights to the company.

The Right of Publicity: Protecting Personal Identity from AI Mimicry

While copyright protects a specific recording, the right of publicity protects a person's identity from unauthorized commercial use. This is arguably the most significant legal hurdle in the context of voice cloning legal issues. This right, which varies by state, prevents the appropriation of a person's name, likeness, and other identifying characteristics—including their voice. A voice is considered a fundamental aspect of one's persona, especially for celebrities and public figures whose voices are distinctive and carry significant commercial value.

Cases like Bette Midler's successful lawsuit against Ford Motor Co. in the 1980s for using a 'sound-alike' singer in a commercial set a powerful precedent. The court ruled that