Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
AI

Matthew McConaughey Trademarks Himself To Fight AI Misuse (msn.com) 38

Posted by msmash from the alright-alright-alright dept.
Matthew McConaughey is taking a novel legal approach to combat unauthorized AI fakes: trademarking himself. From a report: Over the past several months, the "Interstellar" and "Magic Mike" star has had eight trademark applications approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office featuring him staring, smiling and talking. His attorneys said the trademarks are meant to stop AI apps or users from simulating McConaughey's voice or likeness without permission -- an increasingly common concern of performers.

The trademarks include a seven-second clip of the Oscar-winner standing on a porch, a three-second clip of him sitting in front of a Christmas tree, and audio of him saying "Alright, alright, alright," his famous line from the 1993 movie "Dazed and Confused," according to the approved applications. "My team and I want to know that when my voice or likeness is ever used, it's because I approved and signed off on it," the actor said in an email. "We want to create a clear perimeter around ownership with consent and attribution the norm in an AI world."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Matthew McConaughey Trademarks Himself To Fight AI Misuse More

Matthew McConaughey Trademarks Himself To Fight AI Misuse

Comments Filter:

  • Do we all need to do this? (Score:4)

    by BrendaEM ( 871664 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2026 @12:15PM (#65923908) Homepage
    Or will politicians ever wake up about the problems in our society that AI, as implemented is causing. AI could have been deployed to do something beneficial to humanity, instead.
    • AI is a tool and like any tool it can be used for good or ill and that's entirely down to the individuals using it. Just like any other tool there's no law that can prevent a person from using it improperly. The only thing we can do as a society is to punish those who break the laws after the fact. Even before the advent of LLMs or modern AI it's been possible to use computers to facilitate crimes. You could replace "AI" with "computers", "phones", "automobiles", or any other invention and your post would s

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by JoshZK ( 9527547 )
      Ugh, isn't humanity the ones using it incorrectly right this second every second??

    • "Re:Do we all need to do this?"

      Apparently we do. I'm not sure this will change anything at all, based on what I know about the world (which is not a lot, but still)

  • Dazed and Confused (Score:3)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2026 @12:40PM (#65923972)

    Sorry folks. Being stoned has just become a violation of trademark. Better put down the weed now.

  • Well alright, alright, alright... (Score:3)

    by kackle ( 910159 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2026 @01:00PM (#65924012)
    This is an interesting approach. Should we all automatically (through a law) have both a trademark and copyright of ourselves?

    And, should our parents automatically be granted a design patent?! Further, they DO possess the exact creation mechanism (DNA) for our functionality, which a utility patent is supposed to cover.

    • It stinks of missing regulation, potentially of a right that we assumed we have that the law currently doesn't recognize. The right to your own identity.

      • "The right to your own identity."

        Can wait for the first twins suing each other because one allowed their likeness to be used.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by kackle ( 910159 )
          Ha, good one! Although, there are multiple holders of a single patent, and can't a "company" possess a trademark?

    • Utter insanity...but I'm still going to go copyright Plato's likeness right now and maybe Aristotle's too while I'm at it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kackle ( 910159 )
      *I guess it would be the parents who would own the copyright.

    • Should we all automatically (through a law) have both a trademark and copyright of ourselves?

      No. There are other people walking the earth who look and sound like you. There are other people with your name. You cannot claim an exclusive right to something which is naturally shared with others.

      Even in a case where someone is impersonating you they may not be doing so fraudulently. Impersonation is a protected form of performance art. Parody is protected as well.

      The intent must be taken into account. A fraudulent portrayal is illegal. It should be possible to prevent or prosecute. The laws do

  • audio of him saying "Alright, alright, alright"

    Sincere question -- who "owns" lines from movies? The writer(s), the film studio, the actor, or ...?

    If it is indeed the actor, how does that sidestep the analogous "work for hire" copyright interpretation in software development ?

    • I can see him trademarking a scene from a personal video he had made of himself, but if he trademarked a scene from a movie, wouldn't the movie studio have a preceding claim ? Couldn't they sue him for copyright violation if he essentially copied a scene from their movie to trademark ? If the studio allowed a third party to use a scene from their movie that he was in would that trump his trademark ? Sounds messy. Lawyers will probably be the only winners.

    • The rights that you are asking about are primarily copyright protections. If the work was written by the employee of an organization, the right to copy would belong to the employer first. Otherwise that right would initially belong to the author. Of course, copyrights can be bought and sold, so we don't know who actually owns the copyrights at issue. But I don't think copyright matters in this case. Not that it's irrelevant, but it probably doesn't come into play.

      Trademark law doesn't let you create rights

  • I also find this approach very interesting. I wonder:

    Does that mean a Matthew McConaughey lookalike going "Alright, alright, alright" is off-limits for satire?

    Fast forwarding along that train of thought, that could lead to... interesting consequences.

    • Does that mean a Matthew McConaughey lookalike going "Alright, alright, alright" is off-limits for satire?

      Satire is a literary device used for commentary and it's allowed under copyright law and trademarks are to distinguish products and their source, so I'm guessing the only conflict would be someone trying to market a satirical product. Lookalikes - like an AI or Avatar - doing this simply to make money or sell a product w/o his permission would probably be in trouble, but I imagine this would be the case anyway now. The trademark probably just adds another layer of legal leverage/protection for the actor.

    • By law, supposedly nothing is off-limits to satire. At least that's the way it used to be...these days, not so much.

  • (one of the best SNL commercial satires ever) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • We should just write a script in government language or whatever that makes it so whenever someone's born, they go through this Matthew McConaughey process and have their likeness submitted to the trademark system. Or, maybe when they turn like 5 or something, or there'll be way too many lawsuits about too-similar babies. And probably make it re-run every few years too so we don't have to keep acting like 5 year olds. Although people tend already do that on their own so that might be fine

  • So if there is someone out there who looks exactly like him, what then? If that person is older, does it count as prior art? If they are younger, what then?

    Remember, in order to keep a trademark you have to defend it. But if that other person actually exists, you can't defend it (or the dystopian nightmare is really here in full force).

  • Some may remember that Matthew McConaughey also licensed his voice [www.cbc.ca] to Eleven Labs for AI usage.

    At the time, I was a little perplexed, but then I figured it must have been an exclusive license. Nothing can stop some clever AI from faking your voice. But if a company has exclusive rights to it, not only do you have detailed accounting (and likely, veto power) over when and where it is used, but if someone is using it in an unauthorized, unlicensed way, the company can file the lawsuits for you. You and your a

  • Likeness rights and all that?

Slashdot Top Deals

It is better to never have tried anything than to have tried something and failed. - motto of jerks, weenies and losers everywhere

Close