Last week, Taylor Swift filed three trademark applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Two cover her voice speaking specific phrases: “Hey, it’s Taylor Swift” and “Hey, it’s Taylor.” The third covers a specific image of her on stage, described in the application down to her pink guitar, silver boots, and iridescent bodysuit.
This was not a routine IP filing. It’s a legal strategy being tested right now, in real time, by some of the most sophisticated IP attorneys in the entertainment industry. The reason they’re doing it is the same reason you should care about what I’m about to explain: AI-generated deepfakes are a real and growing threat to every creator’s voice, likeness, and identity, and the law is still catching up.
Now, Taylor Swift has resources most creators don’t. She can afford to pay a lot to hire the attorneys at Venable to file trademark applications on her specific voice phrases and test new legal theories in federal court. That’s not an option for most people.
But here’s the thing: the front line of protection for most creators isn’t in the courthouse. It’s in the contract, before you sign it. What every creator can do is read their brand deal contracts before signing and know what to look for.
That’s what this post is for. I’ve also put together a free two-page checklist that covers everything below in plain English. Download the Brand Deal Red Flags Checklist here.
Why Creators Start with an Advantage
Under U.S. copyright law, in most situations, the person who creates a work owns it. The moment you write, record, film, or produce something original, you own the copyright. That’s the default rule, and it’s a good one.
Brand deals are, in many ways, an attempt to change that default rule. Brands want to use what you create. That’s fine, that’s the whole point, that’s why they’re paying you. The question is: on what terms? The difference between a reasonable contract and a rights-stripping one often comes down to a handful of clauses that most creators have never had explained to them.
Here are the eight you need to know.
Clause 1: "All Rights," "In Perpetuity," "Worldwide License"
Watch for these words appearing together without any limits on how, where, or for how long the brand can use your content.
“All rights” means every type of right associated with the content: the right to display it, reproduce it, distribute it, create derivatives from it, and use it in advertising. “In perpetuity” means forever. “Worldwide” means in every country on earth.
A contract granting a “worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free license to use your content in perpetuity for all purposes” gives the brand unlimited rights to your content, forever, everywhere, without paying you again. You still technically own the copyright, but you’ve given such a broad license that ownership doesn’t give you much practical protection.
A reasonable license looks like this: “Brand may use the content on its owned social media channels for a period of six months following the posting date, for the sole purpose of promoting the specific product described in this agreement.” That’s limited. That’s proportionate.
Clause 2: Work-for-Hire, and What the Supreme Court Said About It
A work-for-hire clause doesn’t just give the brand extensive rights to use your content. It says the brand is the legal author and permanent owner of your content from the moment you create it.
In 1989, the Supreme Court decided a case called Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid. A nonprofit hired a sculptor to create a work depicting homeless people for a Christmas display, with no written contract. The nonprofit provided direction and paid for the work. The sculptor supplied his own tools, worked in his own studio, and set his own schedule. When the nonprofit wanted to make copies and take the work on tour, the sculptor said no, and that he owned the copyright.
Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court. The Court held that whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor for work-for-hire purposes depends on common law agency principles, and the sculptor, who supplied his own tools, worked independently, and wasn’t supervised day-to-day, was an independent contractor.
Why does this matter for you? Under the Copyright Act, a work made for hire by an independent contractor only qualifies as work-for-hire if it falls into one of nine specific statutory categories AND there is a written agreement expressly saying it is work-for-hire. Those nine categories include things like contributions to collective works, translations, compilations, and parts of motion pictures. They generally do not include social media posts, brand videos, or sponsored content the way most creators produce it.
A work-for-hire clause in a standard brand deal applied to an independent creator producing content outside those categories may not be legally effective. But the contract dispute that follows when someone tries to enforce it is expensive and stressful. Flag it. Negotiate it. Don’t sign a clause you don’t understand.
Clause 3: Assignment vs. Licensing
Copyright assignment is what work-for-hire tries to accomplish, and often does more effectively.
A license gives someone permission to use your work under specific conditions. You keep ownership. An assignment transfers ownership of the copyright itself. Permanently. If you assign your copyright to a brand, you no longer own what you created. The moment you sign, it’s theirs.
There is one statutory exception worth knowing: under Section 203 of the Copyright Act, authors can terminate grants of copyright, including assignments, after 35 years, with proper notice. That right can’t be contracted away in advance. But 35 years is a long time to wait for a post you made last Tuesday.
A license that gives the brand the specific rights they actually need, for a defined scope and duration, is reasonable. A copyright assignment that transfers permanent ownership is often not, and you should push back on it.
Clause 4: Your Name, Voice, and Likeness
Your identity is protected under what’s called the right of publicity, which varies by state but generally gives you control over the commercial use of your identity. Some contracts include language allowing the brand to use your name, image, voice, or likeness in future campaigns beyond the specific project you’re being paid for right now. Broad language here can let a brand use your face or voice in ways you never imagined when you signed.
Clause 5: AI-Generated Replicas (Deepfakes)—The Newest and Most Dangerous Clause
This is the one I want you to pay extra attention to, because it’s exactly what’s driving the Taylor Swift trademark filings.
The technology exists right now to clone a creator’s voice using a small amount of audio, and to generate images and video that look like you, move like you, and sound like you, promoting whatever the brand wants, without your additional consent, without your presence, and without additional payment. Taylor Swift’s likeness has been used without her permission in AI-generated deepfakes, including by Meta’s AI chatbots and in explicit images that circulated online. Donald Trump shared AI-generated images of her during the 2024 presidential election falsely suggesting she had endorsed him. She never agreed to any of it.
In 2023, the SAG-AFTRA strike centered significantly on this issue: performers were being asked to scan their bodies for digital replicas with no clarity on how those replicas would be used. That was a real negotiation happening in real time.
So what is Taylor Swift doing about it? Her attorneys are testing a theory: that trademarking specific uses of her voice and image gives her additional legal tools, beyond right-of-publicity claims, to challenge AI-generated content. By filing a sound trademark on “Hey, it’s Taylor Swift” spoken in her voice, the theory is that any AI-generated audio likely to be confused with that trademark could be challenged as trademark infringement, which can be pursued in federal court and used to demand takedowns from AI platforms.
It’s a clever approach. The thing is, it hasn’t been fully tested in court yet, so it’s not certain this is a viable strategy, and it requires financial resources most creators don’t have.
The good news, is that states are responding: Tennessee passed the ELVIS Act in 2024, specifically protecting voice and likeness from AI replication. Other states are moving, too. Federal law is still developing.
For most creators right now, the most accessible protection is contractual. If you see any language in a contract about AI, synthetic media, digital replicas, machine-generated content, or broad voice and likeness rights, get a lawyer to look at it before you sign. This is not the place to guess, and the Taylor Swift news tells you exactly why.
Clause 6: Exclusivity and Non-Compete Language
Exclusivity clauses restrict you from working with competing brands. Some exclusivity is reasonable. If you’re promoting a fitness brand, they probably have a legitimate interest in you not promoting a direct competitor in the same window.
The problem is when these clauses are too broad, too long, or too vaguely defined. A clause that says you cannot post any content about competing brands or similar topics, for six months after the campaign ends, without a clear definition of “competing,” can lock you out of your own content lane long after your relationship with the brand is over.
Read the scope and the duration. Negotiate limits proportionate to what the brand actually needs.
Clause 7: FTC Disclosure—Who Is Liable When It Goes Wrong
When a brand deal goes wrong and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) comes calling, both the brand AND the creator can be on the hook. The question your contract needs to answer: who’s responsible for making sure the disclosure is done right? this one matters because it can create legal liability, not just a contract dispute.
The FTC requires that paid partnerships, sponsorships, and brand deals be disclosed. The legal standard is “clear and conspicuous.” A #ad buried in a list of twenty hashtags does not meet that standard. The FTC has said so explicitly and has taken enforcement action based on it.
In 2016, the FTC reached a consent agreement with Lord and Taylor after it paid fashion influencers to post about a clothing line without disclosing the paid relationship. That same year, the FTC settled with Warner Bros. Home Entertainment over paid influencer posts promoting a video game where the sponsorship wasn’t disclosed.
Both the brand and the creator can be held liable. Your contract should clearly answer: who is responsible for drafting the disclosure language, and who confirms it meets FTC requirements? Don’t assume the brand knows what they’re doing. “The brand told me to post it that way” has not historically been a defense the FTC has accepted.
Clause 8: Indemnification—When You Pay for Someone Else's Problem
A broad indemnification clause can make you responsible for the brand’s legal costs, claims, or damages arising from the content, even if the brand directed and approved everything you did. That’s not hypothetical. If a brand directs you to make a specific claim about a product and that claim turns out to be false or misleading, there may be regulatory or legal consequences.
Indemnification clauses should be mutual, meaning each party covers the consequences of their own conduct. At minimum, your obligation should be limited to things that are actually your fault. You should not be indemnifying a brand for claims arising from the brand’s own direction, approval, or conduct.
What to Do With All of This
You don’t need to memorize all eight clauses. You just need to know what questions to ask before you sign, and what to do if the answer to any of them is concerning.
I put together a free two-page checklist specifically for this: the Brand Deal Red Flags Checklist. Eight plain-English questions, with a brief explanation of why each clause matters and what a red flag looks like. Download it free here.
If you check any of the boxes, get a lawyer to look at the contract before you sign. The cost of a contract review is a fraction of the cost of trying to undo signing away your rights. And some rights, once assigned, cannot be recovered at any price.
The legal horror stories I’ve seen almost always follow the same plot: someone built something valuable and didn’t protect it, or signed something they didn’t understand, or waited until the damage was already done. You don’t have to be in that story.
I help entrepreneurs, creators, and small business owners across the U.S. make smart, legally sound decisions about their IP: patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. For Illinois and Georgia clients, I also review brand deals, content creation, and marketing contracts. Book a consultation at kingpatentlaw.com or call 217-714-8558.
Spellbinding IP podcast on all major platforms. @kingpatentlaw on social media.
