How Mathew McConaughey and Hrithik Roshan Are Fighting for Their Voices

Matthew McConaughey looked the AI industry square in the eye and essentially said, "Alright, alright, alright—but not without my permission." The Oscar winner recently trademarked his signature drawl and that iconic three-word phrase, filing sound marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office that capture the exact cadence of his voice. His legal team secured these protections in December 2025, marking what intellectual property experts call a brazen move against the rising tide of digital impersonation. Several years ago, Harley Davidson, failed to protect the signature deep rumble of its iconic motorcycles. Perhaps this ruling could open the case again as in today’s attention economy, the voice has become a currency.

The trademark registration specifies precisely how McConaughey delivers the line: the first two "alrights" pitched lower, the final one climbing higher, a vocal fingerprint as distinctive as a fingerprint itself. In a statement to the Wall Street Journal, the actor explained his motivation plainly—he wants any use of his voice or likeness to carry his explicit approval, establishing clear ownership in an AI-driven landscape where consent often becomes an afterthought.

Hrithik Roshan Protects his Persona

This American precedent resonates powerfully across the Pacific, where Indian courts have been wrestling with remarkably similar questions. While McConaughey weaponizes trademark law, Bollywood superstar Hrithik Roshan has been forging his own path through India's constitutional and common law frameworks. The Delhi High Court granted Roshan interim protection in October 2025, recognizing that his voice, image, and entire persona deserve legal shelter from AI-generated exploitation.

The court's order didn't merely acknowledge his face or name as protected attributes—it extended to his unique performance style, mannerisms, and that unmistakable vocal quality that fans recognize instantly. The ruling created a dynamic injunction, meaning future iterations of AI misuse would automatically fall under the court's prohibition without requiring Roshan to return for separate hearings each time technology mutated.

The judicial activism in Roshan's case reflects a broader pattern across India's high courts. The Bombay High Court handed similar relief to veteran singer Asha Bhosle, whose ethereal voice has been digitally cloned without consent, and to actor Suniel Shetty, whose rugged baritone and distinctive screen presence faced unauthorized replication.

These rulings rest on a foundation that might surprise casual observers—they're built not on specialized AI legislation, which doesn't yet exist in India, but on the sturdy pillars of Article 21 of the Constitution, which safeguards life, personal liberty, and the judicially recognized right to privacy. When deepfake technology weaves together a celebrity's vocal patterns to create synthetic endorsements or morphs their image into compromising scenarios, courts have determined this constitutes a direct assault on personality rights, dignity, and economic autonomy.

When Harley Davidson Failed to Protect its Rumble

Yet the concept of protecting a signature sound as commercial property hardly began with human voices. Harley-Davidson learned this lesson through a six-year legal battle that ultimately sputtered out in 2000. The motorcycle manufacturer attempted to trademark the distinctive exhaust note of its V-twin engines—that deep, syncopated rumble that announces a Harley's presence blocks before it appears. Their 1994 application described the mark as "the exhaust sound of applicant's motorcycles, produced by V-Twin, common crankpin motorcycle engines when the goods are in use."

Nine competitors, including Yamaha, Suzuki, and Honda, immediately revved their legal engines in opposition, arguing that many cruiser motorcycles produce similar sounds and that Harley's own engines varied enough between models to make the claimed sound inconsistent. After years of fighting, Harley-Davidson quietly withdrew its application, with then-Vice President Joanne Bischmann telling reporters that if customers know the sound can't be imitated, that's protection enough.

The Harley-Davidson case illuminates the challenges courts face when defining the boundaries of sonic identity. Where does a brand's acoustic signature end and generic mechanical function begin? The question becomes even more complex with human voices, which blend innate biological characteristics with carefully cultivated performance styles. Indian courts have navigated this by focusing not on the mechanical production of sound but on the identity it represents.

The Signature of Asha Bhosle’s Voice

When AI clones Asha Bhosle's voice, it's not just replicating vocal cords and breath control—it's appropriating the lifetime of artistic choices, emotional resonance, and cultural connection that make her voice valuable. The Delhi High Court recognized this implicitly in Roshan's case, ordering 72-hour takedowns of infringing content and demanding that platforms like Google and Meta disclose user details within three weeks.

The Information Technology Act of 2000 provides the statutory backbone for these judicial innovations, even though its drafters never imagined deepfakes. Section 66C addresses identity theft through digital means, while Section 66D tackles cheating by impersonation—both directly applicable to AI voice cloning used for fraud. Sections 67 and 67A prohibit the publication of sexually explicit deepfake content, and Section 79 governs intermediary liability, requiring platforms to remove illegal AI-generated material after receiving proper notification. Courts have layered these provisions with common law doctrines like passing off, which prevents deceptive commercial use of a celebrity's implied endorsement, creating a legal framework that catches harmful AI applications even without a dedicated deepfake law.

#mathewmcconaughey #hrithikroshan #ashabhosle #akshaykumar #harleydavidson #aiclone