The Great Uninvited: Who Owns Your Image in the AI Age?

The unauthorized use of individuals’ likenesses, voices, and creative works by tech companies has become a growing concern. In 2026, high-profile lawsuits have emerged, including Dua Lipa’s lawsuit against Samsung over the use of her image without permission. Taylor Swift’s attempt to trademark her own voice is another notable example.

Scratching beneath the surface reveals a complex web of issues surrounding AI-generated content. The proliferation of right-of-publicity violations has thrown traditional notions of ownership and consent into chaos. Tech companies are using people’s voices to train their systems without permission, while individuals unwittingly find themselves featured in digital works.

Lawsuits alleging right-of-publicity violations argue that tech companies profit from an individual’s likeness by using their image or voice without consent. However, determining what constitutes a “material contribution” can be tricky, as seen in Dua Lipa vs Samsung. The case highlights the need for clear guidelines on intellectual property rights.

Taylor Swift’s decision to trademark her own voice is an attempt to sidestep state laws governing right-of-publicity and rely on federal trademark law instead. However, critics point out that this approach has limitations, protecting only against consumer confusion regarding a product or service’s source, not the unauthorized use of someone’s voice for other purposes.

The question remains: if companies can use our voices and images without permission, do we still own them? Or have they effectively become public domain, free for anyone to exploit? The answer lies somewhere in between. However, it is clear that the status quo is unsustainable.

Another notable example of this trend is the American Federation of Musicians’ lawsuit against record companies over unpaid royalties. AFM argues that AI-generated music constitutes a “new use” of their members’ creative work, attempting to establish a new precedent for compensation in the digital age. This case highlights the need for clearer guidelines on intellectual property rights and consent.

As we navigate this complex landscape, one thing is clear: the boundaries between ownership and public domain are becoming increasingly blurred. It’s time to have a serious conversation about what it means to own something in the AI age – and whether our traditional notions of property rights are sufficient to protect us from exploitation by tech companies.

The consequences of inaction will be far-reaching, not just for individuals but also for society as a whole. Without clear guidelines on intellectual property rights, we risk creating a world where creative works are treated as commodities rather than valuable contributions to human culture. As the AI-generated content industry continues to grow, it’s essential that we establish a framework for protecting creators’ rights and ensuring their work is valued accordingly.

This issue is not just about protecting individuals’ intellectual property – it’s about preserving the very fabric of creativity in the digital age. We must ensure that our laws keep pace with technological advancements and provide adequate safeguards against exploitation by those seeking to profit from our likenesses without permission. The future of creative work depends on it.