Intellectual Property Insights from Fishman Stewart
Mini Article – Volume 22, Issue 17
Share on Social
Artificial Intelligence Resurrects Val Kilmer’s Voice for ‘Top Gun: Maverik’
By Art Hallman
Top Gun: Maverik has dominated the box office this summer, surpassing $1.37 billion globally, and has become Tom Cruise’s highest grossing movie of all time. To the delight of Top Gun fans, Val Kilmer returned as Tom “Iceman” Kazansky.
Kilmer’s health has been in the headlines for years and, sadly, he lost his ability to speak after battling throat cancer. But for his return to the big screen, Kilmer partnered with the London startup Sonantic to digitally recreate his voice. Sonantic is a voice synthesis company that uses an artificial intelligence engine to create expressive and realistic artificial voices.
Sonantic generates voice models by feeding its proprietary algorithms with hours of archival footage of specific individuals speaking. However, a substantial portion of the available archival footage of Kilmer was off-limits due to licensing issues. This left Sonantic with a suboptimal amount of footage to feed into the existing software to create Kilmer’s model. To compensate, Sonantic developed new algorithms capable of generating a better-quality voice model with the limited amount of available footage. Then, Sonantic generated multiple voice models and selected the model that most closely mimicked Kilmer’s voice. The result was a voice model with the capability of creating completely new dialogue with emotional expression, inflection, and nuance—which is a giant leap from the mixed-tape method of stitching together existing recorded dialogue clips.
Kilmer’s collaboration with Sonantic raises several intellectual property concerns. For instance, who owns Kilmer’s recreated voice? Kilmer? Sonantic? No one? Can Kilmer prevent Sonantic from using his cloned voice in other content? Can Sonantic or Kilmer prevent other parties from appropriating or copying the cloned Kilmer voice? How much say should Kilmer and Sonantic each have in the use of the cloned voice going forward?
Currently, there are no federal or state laws that directly address the simulation or recreation of an individual’s voice by A.I. It is unclear whether, or how, existing legal theories, like copyright law and publicity rights, might apply to the use or misuse of artificially cloned voices. Additionally, the proliferation of A.I. voice cloning has already led to sophisticated criminal activity—like a $35 million bank heist in 2020—and a $240,000 fraud scheme. Also, some uses have raised ethical concerns—like the posthumous cloning of Anthony Bourdain’s voice in a documentary film to speak a few sentences the late celebrity chef wrote, but never said aloud.
As A.I. continues to drastically evolve, political pressure is escalating for Congress to modernize intellectual property laws to keep pace with technological advancements. Progress is slow when it comes to intellectual property law, and there is no certainty that meaningful reform will occur anytime soon. Until legislation catches up, parties should carefully draft and review contract and licensing provisions regarding the ownership and control of voice models at the outset of a project.
Art Hallman is an associate attorney at Fishman Stewart and practices in the fields of patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret law. Before attending law school, he worked as an engineer in the oil field service industry and the automotive industry. He holds an B.S. degree in electrical engineering and an MBA.
Published August 25, 2022
Related Content from Fishman Stewart
Before a brand makes headlines for the right reasons, it helps to make sure someone else doesn’t already own the name. A recent dispute involving Tesla offers a timely reminder that a great brand name can become an expensive problem.
One second became a surprisingly complicated piece of technology, intellectual property and sports governance in the 2026 collegiate season opening game.
With the end of Hot Dog Season quickly approaching, now is a good time to reflect on the innovative new growth that made this season what it is today.
The Ninth Circuit just reversed course on Jack Daniel's dilution claim against the 'Bad Spaniels' dog toy, vacating the injunction and ruling that parody humor alone doesn't prove reputational harm. Here's what the decision means for brand owners pursuing tarnishment claims.
The trading card industry is booming again - and what makes this moment different is not who holds the cards, literally and figuratively, but how the trading card space is rapidly evolving.
Imagine paying millions of dollars for the naming rights to a stadium—only to have your brand hidden behind a giant white tarp. That’s exactly what happened to Levi Strauss during the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
As we celebrate our nation’s birthday on July 4th, many communities are replacing or supplementing traditional fireworks with drone-based light shows - which prompts the question of intellectual property protection.
The fun internet trend of promoting "dupes" has officially crossed the trademark line and everyday content creators are finding themselves in the crosshairs of multimillion-dollar corporate lawsuits.
The FIFA World Cup is global football (or soccer) at its highest level. It is, however, also one of the most carefully crafted displays of intellectual property (IP) in the world.
Trademark owners are often cast as villains when they send cease-and-desist letters. But in trademark law, failing to enforce rights can sometimes create bigger problems than enforcing them.
IDENTIFYING, SECURING AND ADVANCING CREATIVITY®
