In 2024, Jeremy Clarkson’s face featured in a series of social media adverts which depicted the former Top Gear host extolling the virtues of a digital currency. The ads, designed to persuade unwitting fans to part with their money by using Mr Clarkson’s image, spread quickly across social media.
But Mr Clarkson’s endorsement never actually happened. Instead, the TV star had fallen prey to AI deepfakes, which used his likeness in a bid to persuade unwitting fans to part with their money.
The Clarkson’s Farm star is one of a host of famous people who have seen their faces being used as marketing tools without their consent. Now he and an unlikely handful of other stars are fighting back in an unusual way – by filing trademarks on their faces.
Taylor Swift, Chelsea footballer Cole Palmer, and darts sensation Luke Littler are among the famous names who, like Mr Clarkson, have filed trademarks in a bid to fight back against their AI likenesses.
Experts say that for celebrities it could be a “savvy move” to combat AI-generated deepfakes – but that it’s unlikely to be a silver bullet for the famous and everyday Joe alike.
“A trademark in the legal context is a word, logo, shape or colour which distinguishes goods or services,” Faris Dean, partner in the corporate team at Ison Harrison Solicitors, explains. “In basic terms, it is what allows a member of the public to identify and locate something they want to buy or experience.”
Michael Rimola, intellectual property associate at law firm JMW, agrees that trademark law in the UK is “very much about business”: “You’d only file a trademark if you’re actually selling something, so it wouldn’t be for personal use,” he told The Independent.
Celebrities hold a unique status in this area, he says, because for many of them, their face is their brand – or at least a large part of it.
Even then, trademarking with the sole intention of preventing deepfakes is flawed. Mr Rimola highlights that while the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) granted Mr Clarkson’s trademark, such cases have yet to be tested in court.
One reason its validity could be questioned is if the applicant doesn’t have an intention to actually use their trademark. Filing for a trademark without a genuine intention to use it, or even specifically to prevent others from using it, could see an application being rejected for “bad faith”. Equally, if you fail to use it within five years, it can be cancelled for non-use.
Another complication is what trademarking your face actually protects. If you are granted a trademark for a particular picture of your face, it could be argued in court that only that one picture is covered. Likewise, your trademark could quickly fall irrelevant with a new haircut or distinctive facial change such as a piercing or growing facial hair.
“From a human rights and moral point of view, it could also present issues,” Mr Dean adds. “What if one person registers a trademark which is actually the face of another person?
“There are substantial data protection and privacy considerations.”
Celebrities who have registered trademarks with a clear commercial intent are likely to have an easier run of arguing their validity, Mr Rimola says. England footballer Cole Palmer, for example, has trademarked his signature “Cold Palmer” celebration (and the phrase itself) for use on a range of merchandise. But without this business purpose, applicants could find their trademarks ruled invalid.
Despite these limitations, celebrities are getting “creative” with trademarks because there is no provision in UK law for image rights, meaning your face is not protected under any existing legislation.
“There’s no such thing as image rights in the UK, so celebrities are having to look elsewhere to protect their image against AI,” he continues. “I think trademarks is one way to do that, but it’s a bit of a shoehorn to be honest.”
There could be some benefits to protecting your face in this way. Social media companies, he says, are more likely to order creators to remove certain content – including AI deepfakes – if they can prove it is infringing on a trademark.
But both experts say that despite the moves made by high-profile celebrities, trademarking your face is no “silver bullet” against deepfakes.
Earlier this year, the UK government cracked down on non-consensual sexually explicit images, including deepfakes. But it has yet to legislate for deepfakes that aren’t sexually explicit in nature – and how it could do so is still under discussion.
“These are issues which the UK parliament is currently grappling with to try and formulate legislation,” Mr Dean explains.
“I believe it is important that the UK parliament set the parameters, so this is not addressed [by people with legitimate concerns] through other forums such as trademark registration.”
Read MoreThe rise of ‘Stacey face’: How AI is warping our beauty standards
ChatGPT adds alerts for people suffering from a mental health emergency
AI ‘nudification’ tools set to be banned within EU
AI company chatbots accused of holding themselves out as licensed doctors: lawsuit
‘AI gave me your number’: AI doxxing turning ChatGPT hallucinations into harassment
Google settles lawsuit over alleged discrimination against Black employees