The rights of a showgirl: protecting personality and image through trade marks

In April 2026, TAS Rights Management, Taylor Swift's management company, filed three US trade mark applications: two sound marks covering short spoken phrases in Swift's own voice (“Hey, it’s Taylor Swift” and “Hey, it’s Taylor”), and one image mark protecting a distinctive on stage photograph from her renowned 'Eras Tour', each in Class 41 (education and entertainment). The applications are limited to those particular sound clips and an image – she is not moving to protect her voice generally or full digital likeness. Swift is not alone in this. Two months later, Lionel Richie through RichLion Holdings, LLC filed four sound mark applications covering spoken phrases in his voice. These filings may signal a growing willingness among public figures to use trade mark law to protect distinctive aspects of their identity in response to the increasing sophistication of AI-generated impersonation.

Swift is no stranger to fighting industry-wide battles and succeeding, most notably in her disputes with streaming platforms. In 2014, she removed her catalogue from Spotify in protest over streaming economics, and in 2015 she publicly challenged Apple Music’s refusal to pay artists during free trials. More recently, her contractual negotiations with Universal Music Group have had wider industry effects, including securing improved financial outcomes for artists. She has previously demonstrated her ability to leverage legal and commercial pressure to influence industry norms, even where formal legal rights were limited. It is not surprising that she is making moves to protect her image. The filings come after years of AI-generated impersonations, deepfakes and fake endorsements involving Swift circulating online, and seem to signal a desire to protect her identity from further AI-misuse. 

For UK rights holders (and their advisers), the latest filings highlight a growing challenge: AI-driven impersonation is advancing faster than the legal frameworks designed to address it. As a result, rights holders are increasingly looking beyond traditional causes of action and towards a combination of traditional intellectual property rights, commercial agreements and licensing strategies to protect the value of their identity. Trade mark law may not be sufficient in and of itself, but it may offer protection for specific aspects of an identity that function as valuable commercial assets. There may be legal pitfalls, but with appropriate advice  there may be ways for rights holders to navigate those constraints through existing legal tools. .

Big reputations: personality rights in the UK 

TAS Rights Management made these filings to stop copycats misusing Swift's identity, and particularly to prevent AI-driven false representation. These trade mark filings have been made in the US, not the UK, but Swift's strategy raises interesting questions of what would happen in the UK. Many US states recognise a right of publicity, or an image right, which gives individuals the right to control and commercially exploit their name, image, or other aspects of their identity.

Unlike many US states, and some European jurisdictions such as France and Germany, the UK does not recognise a standalone personality or image right. Protections for musicians and other public figures have been piecemeal. Copyright protects original content such as music, lyrics and sound recordings. Passing off is a common law tort that can protect an artist's unregistered goodwill attaching to a name, image or reputation depending on the commercial context. Trade marks generally protect brand origin.

This fragmentation in rights protection has existed for decades, but generative AI is increasing the scale of and sophistication of impersonation and potential risks for artists. Large language models (LLMs) can produce content that: (i) sounds and looks like a particular celebrity; or (ii) gives a false impression of endorsement. In such a case, copyright may be unable to protect these rights because there may not have been any 'copying' at all, depending on how the LLM was trained. Content can also be generated faster, on a less costly basis and at greater scale, amplifying misrepresentation risks and raising the question: how can law respond when AI can reproduce not just individual creative works, but the identity of the creator?  

AI protection: trade mark as a false god?

Trade marks are largely intended to operate as an indicator of brand source . Trade mark infringement can be triggered by the use of confusingly similar signs, and infringement is not contingent on artistic originality. 

We have seen an increasing trend for some celebrities and artists to register their names and any distinctive marks or logos, such as a signature, to protect their exclusive rights to use such distinctive identifiers in specific commercial contexts. However, there remain a few pitfalls in this approach, and it is important to distinguish between the protection of a brand asset and the protection of identity.

Celebrity attempts to register names or images as 'mere image carrier' trade marks to effectively operate as a form of personality rights in the UK have met with resistance. In 2005, the UK Intellectual Property Office refused Alex Ferguson's application to register ALEX FERGUSON as a Class 16 trade mark for posters, photographs and other printed materials. The core reasoning was: (i) the mark was not distinctive enough; and (ii) for goods whose purpose is to depict or refer to a person, a famous name will be understood by consumers as describing the subject matter of the goods, not as indicating their commercial origin, which is the essential function of a trade mark  (i.e. distinguishing one trader’s goods from another’s). 

Ultimately, UK trade mark law does not allow the monopolisation of identity for a product simply carrying an image, even if the identity is commercially valuable and widely recognised. It is worth noting that the ALEX FERGUSON application was successful in many categories where it could function as an indicator of origin, but there was an important boundary: trade marks protect commercial source, not fame itself. That boundary still remains central to assessing modern attempts to use UK trade mark law to control digital likeness, including AI generated images or content, where the risk is that a mark only describes subject matter rather than trade origin.

So what is passing off defending?

Passing off is currently the principal cause of action in the UK where public figures consider their identity has been misused. Passing off may protect a public figure from false endorsement if the following can be proven:

• Goodwill: the public figure has protectable goodwill in the UK in that their name, likeness or image has a commercial reputation capable of endorsement or merchandise. This goes beyond mere 'fame' – the goodwill must attach to a business;
• Misrepresentation: the defendant must have made some level of misrepresentation, either expressly or implicitly, which would lead a significant portion of the public to believe that the public figure has endorsed or is otherwise connected to the goods or services being offered by the defendant; and
• Damage: damage can be present or prospective and is not limited only to financial loss.

The UK grappled with this matrix in what is considered to be the reigning definitive case for celebrity passing off: Irvine v Talksport Ltd [2002] EWHC 367 (Ch). In this case, it was held that Eddie Irvine, the F1 racing driver was sufficiently well-known to the public that the use of a digitally altered photograph of him by a commercial enterprise amounted to a false endorsement message, even though the original photograph had been lawfully obtained. 

This doctrine was subsequently refined and constrained by Fenty v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 3 after Rihanna took action against the retail giant alleging passing off for Topshop selling a t-shirt with her photograph on it. There was no copyright claim because the photographer of the photo had lawfully licensed the t-shirt to Topshop. The Court of Appeal held that the mere sale of a T-shirt bearing the likeness of a public figure is not automatically passing off because consumers are more likely to buy such merchandise because they want an image of the public figure. The Court also restated the principle that celebrities and other public figures do not have a general right to control their image. Rihanna did however succeed on the basis that she already had a commercial relationship with Topshop and other case specific factors that meant purchasers may be deceived into believing that Rihanna has authorised the merchandise.

Both cases demonstrate that the scope of passing off as a legal mechanism for protecting identity is inherently limited. The evidential burden of proving goodwill, misrepresentation and damage is high and means that passing off is only available where provable misuse has occurred. Not every AI-generated digital or audio likeness will amount to misrepresentation and cause damage, even if it feels exploitative or unfair for the public figure. Like existing trade mark law, it may be a powerful tool where AI-generated content creates a false impression of association, but it does not amount to a general right to control identity and should not be relied on alone. 

Paving a narrower path – living for the hope of limited trade mark routes with contractual protection

The limitations of trade marks and passing off do not mean that UK rights holders lack options. Instead, they illustrate that attempting to protect identity as a whole in the UK is unlikely to succeed, but seeking protection for specific commercial assets associated with that identity may be achievable. It is in this narrower space that Swift's US filing strategy may provide a lead for the UK. . 

UK law recognises sound marks in principle (such as jingles and audio logos) where they are distinctive and identify a commercial origin. The recent filings by both Swift and Richie illustrate an attempt to extend that logic to recognisable spoken phrases associated with particular artists. A signature catchphrase ("Hey, it's Taylor", or "Easy Like Sunday Morning") could, in theory, be registrable if it is perceived as a brand identifier (and not just an introduction), and if it has acquired sufficient distinctiveness. This reflects a more commercially realistic strategy. Instead of seeking protection for a well-known voice in the abstract, which is unlikely to succeed in the UK, rights holders may have greater success in protecting distinctive audio clips that consumers recognise as denoting a commercial source. The critical distinction is whether audiences perceive a brand or a personal characteristic. 

A similar distinction arises in respect of her image filing. Swift's approach becomes more viable if it is treated as a figurative mark rather than a likeness right. UK law allows images to be registered as trade marks where an image or visual representation has become distinctive of a particular person in a commercial context. The hurdle is proving that the image is an indicator of a commercial brand, and not a subject matter. This is where the Alex Ferguson case failed. However, a highly stylised, repeatable visual motif may be capable of functioning as a trade mark where it is distinctive and used repeatedly across branding. Successful examples such as Usain Bolt's "Lightning Bolt" silhouette, Mo Farah's "Mobot" gesture and Kylian Mbappé's "Crossed Arms" pose show that rights holders can often achieve more success through attempting to protect a distinctive representation of their personality, rather than by attempting to monopolise their appearance generally.

Beyond intellectual property rights, contractual arrangements are likely to remain one of the most important tools available to UK rights holders. In practice, much of the commercial value associated with a public figure's identity is already exploited through sponsorship, endorsement, licensing and merchandising agreements. Those arrangements can define how a name, image, voice, likeness, signature phrase or other brand asset may be used, by whom, and in what context. While contractual rights cannot create a freestanding property right in identity or bind third parties who are not party to the agreement, they can provide valuable certainty and control over commercial exploitation. We are already seeing, and expect to see more frequently, AI-specific provisions in commercial agreements, including warranties, indemnities and restrictions seeking to prevent the unauthorised use of a person's identity through AI-generated content. 

Long story short…

Taylor Swift’s trade mark filings are a powerful signal of a blank space in the law. Her approach, while novel, is not isolated, as it was followed by Lionel Richie a short time later. From a UK perspective, they expose the difficulties of applying traditional intellectual property doctrines to AI-driven identity misuse, and the extent to which public figures are increasingly repurposing intellectual property rights to protect something they were never designed to cover: personal identity itself. 

For now, UK law remains resistant to recognising a freestanding personality or image right. Celebrity trade mark strategies must contend with the enduring force of the Alex Ferguson refusal, and trade mark law remains focused on the core function of indicating commercial origin, not conferring ownership over identity. The rise of AI may increase the misuse of identity, but it has not altered established legal principles.

For UK rights holders, however, the absence of a general image or personality right does not mean an absence of protection. The most effective strategy is likely to be layered and considered. Public figures should identify the aspects of their identity that consumers recognise and associate with commercial origin, such as names, signatures, catchphrases, and distinctive poses, and consider whether those elements can be protected and commercialised.

Trade marks may play an important role where those elements function as genuine indicators of origin. Contractual arrangements, including licensing, sponsorship and endorsement agreements, can help define and regulate their commercial exploitation. Passing off will remain an important legal remedy where false endorsement or misrepresentation occurs, but it should be viewed as one part of a broader strategy.

Ultimately, the key lesson from these filings is not that rights holders can register their identity for protection in the UK as such, but that, in a legal landscape that is struggling to keep pace with technology, those who proactively identify, protect and commercialise the distinctive aspects of their identity will be best placed to navigate both the risks and opportunities presented by AI.

As AI continues to challenge the boundaries of traditional intellectual property law, rights holders should take a proactive approach to identify and protect the commercially valuable aspects of their identity. If you would like to discuss strategies for protecting your  brand, reputation and creative assets in the age of AI, get in touch with a member of our intellectual property and technology team.