The Jenna scenario isolates the specific question that AI voice technology creates: does a contract for recorded performances transfer rights to the performer's voice pattern itself? The answer is no — those are different rights, and AI use requires the second right, not just the first. Most creative contracts were written before AI voice cloning [...]

In most internal communication contexts, disclosure is not required for AI-assisted drafting — the distinction is between using AI as a writing tool versus presenting AI output as entirely the work of a specific human author in a way that would create a false impression. For customer-facing communications, marketing content, and any context where authenticity [...]

AI-generated images of fictional people — not based on any real individual's likeness — are generally permissible for marketing use, subject to your organization's content guidelines. The restriction applies when the AI is generating content that uses, resembles, or is derived from a specific real person's appearance or identity.

Verbal permission is not sufficient. AI voice use requires explicit, written authorization that specifies the scope of the permitted use — which campaigns, which platforms, which time period. Without written documentation, the organization has no defensible basis for the use and no evidence of consent if the use is disputed.

Under the EU AI Act and UK AI principles, customers must be informed they are interacting with an AI system when the interaction could create a reasonable impression of human involvement. A clear disclosure at the start of the chat — 'You're chatting with our AI assistant' — satisfies the requirement. The chatbot should also [...]