Voices have value; the law just hasn’t caught up.

As AI voice cloning becomes cheaper, faster and more convincing, agencies, brands, creators and talent are confronting a new commercial reality: our voices are yet to be adequately protected.

Distinctive voices can now be replicated with remarkable accuracy and deployed across multiple channels at scale, yet UK law provides surprisingly little clarity on how those voices can be controlled, licensed or protected.

Recent headlines brought this issue into focus when Stephen Fry revealed that his voice had been recreated using AI trained on recordings of his Harry Potter audiobooks, generating entirely new narration that he had never recorded.

The story resonated because it exposed something that feels instinctively wrong to most people. A highly recognisable voice had been replicated and used to create new content without the speaker’s involvement, yet the legal position surrounding that use was far from straightforward. 

As AI-generated content, voice cloning and digital replicas become increasingly sophisticated, businesses are asking a question UK law does not clearly answer: who controls a voice, and what legal rights arise when artificial intelligence reproduces it?

Voices as Commercial Assets

For many individuals and businesses, a voice can be every bit as valuable as a name, image, reputation or trademark.

Presenters, broadcasters, actors, voice artists, influencers and founders frequently build significant commercial value around a distinctive tone, delivery or style. Audiences often recognise a voice before any visual branding appears, making it a source of:

• Trust
• Recognition
• Commercial differentiation. 

This is far from theoretical. Brands routinely invest heavily in recognisable voices because of the authenticity and audience engagement they generate. Increasingly, a distinctive voice has become a commercially valuable asset in its own right. 

Technology has made that asset easier than ever to reproduce, whilst the legal framework governing its use has not evolved at the same pace. 

The Pre-AI Case of Bette Midler

Although AI has accelerated the issue, disputes involving the commercial value of voices are not new.

A well-known example is the dispute between singer Bette Midler and Ford in the United States. After Midler declined to appear in an advertising campaign, Ford instructed one of her former backing singers to imitate her voice as closely as possible. Many listeners believed Midler had participated in the campaign.

Whilst decided under a different legal framework, the underlying issue remains highly relevant. The commercial value Ford sought was not simply the song, but the goodwill attached to Midler’s distinctive voice.  

The difference today is scale. Businesses no longer need a convincing human soundalike. AI can generate highly realistic synthetic voices from relatively small amounts of source material, separating the commercial value of a voice from the individual who created it. That shift lies at the heart of many of the legal questions now emerging.

The UK’s Patchwork of Protection

One of the greatest challenges is that UK law does not recognise a standalone right in a person’s voice. Many clients are surprised to discover there is no single legal principle preventing someone from recreating or imitating another person’s voice. Instead, protection comes from several different areas of law. 

• Data protection legislation may apply where voice recordings constitute personal data or biometric information.
• Copyright and performers’ rights can protect recordings and performances.
• Privacy and human rights principles may be relevant where private material is involved.
• Passing off may assist where use of a voice falsely suggests endorsement or commercial association.
• Defamation may provide a remedy where synthetic content causes reputational harm.  

What these rights share is that they protect something connected to the voice rather than the voice itself. The law can often address the consequences of misuse, but it remains far less clear about ownership or control of the voice.

Why Contracts Are Becoming Increasingly Important

In practice, the strongest protection often comes not from legislation but from carefully drafted contracts. 

Voice cloning technology has prompted agencies, brands, production companies and rights holders to revisit standard agreements and address issues that would barely have featured in negotiations a few years ago. 

Questions increasingly arise around whether recordings may be used to train AI models, whether synthetic voices can be created, how long usage rights extend, whether approval is required for future uses, and what obligations apply when a commercial relationship ends.

The distinction between an authorised recording and an unauthorised synthetic recreation can be commercially significant. A voice artist may agree to record a campaign without expecting those recordings to become the basis of an AI-generated version of their voice. Similarly, a founder may appear in marketing content without anticipating that their voice could later be replicated through AI. 

Where contracts fail to address these issues, parties may find themselves relying on legal principles developed long before AI-generated media became commercially viable.

For that reason, many organisations are now introducing provisions covering AI training, synthetic voice generation, reuse rights, approval processes and deletion obligations. These clauses need not be overly complex, but they should clearly define what is being licensed, for what purpose, for how long and on what terms.  

Beyond Intellectual Property

It would be a mistake to view voice cloning solely as an intellectual property issue.  

The technology also raises important questions around advertising regulation, consumer protection, cybersecurity, fraud prevention and corporate governance. 

The same tools capable of generating synthetic voiceovers for marketing campaigns can also create convincing impersonations for scams, social engineering attacks and false endorsements. 

For brands, authenticity and consumer trust are key concerns. If a synthetic voice is used in a campaign, audiences may assume the individual has approved or endorsed the content. Where that assumption is incorrect, the issue may quickly extend beyond intellectual property into misleading advertising, reputation management and consumer protection.

For businesses more broadly, the ability to imitate senior executives or public-facing spokespeople presents obvious governance and security risks. As synthetic content becomes increasingly sophisticated, discussions around voice replication are moving beyond legal teams and into marketing, procurement, compliance and risk functions.

How your agency should respond

The UK Government’s recent consideration of personality rights and AI-related issues suggests these questions are receiving greater attention. Whether that ultimately results in dedicated protection for voices, likenesses or digital replicas remains to be seen.

For now, businesses, agencies and talent continue to operate within a patchwork of intellectual property, privacy, reputation and contractual rights. While the law continues to evolve, agencies do not need to wait for legislative reform before taking practical steps.

Agencies should review both their client contracts and agreements with freelancers, creators and talent. In particular, businesses should consider whether existing terms adequately address AI training rights, synthetic voice generation, ownership of AI outputs and approval for future uses.

You can find further information on drafting a solid contract here.

The Creative, Digital & Media Team at Glaisyers ETL advises agencies, brands, production companies, creators and rights holders on the legal and commercial issues shaping the sector, including AI, intellectual property, data protection, advertising regulation and emerging technologies.  

If AI-generated voices, synthetic content or digital replica rights are beginning to appear in your contracts, campaigns or commercial negotiations, we’d be happy to discuss the issues with you and help you navigate this rapidly evolving area.