In late November, the John H. Cash Revocable Trust sued The Coca-Cola Company for allegedly using the country music legend's voice in a television advertisement for its Coca-Cola and Coca-Cola Zero Sugar beverages.  In its complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville Division), the plaintiff, which claims to own Johnny Cash's Right of Publicity, alleged violation of Tennessee's right of publicity statute (not surprisingly known as the “Elvis Act”) as well as for infringing Tennessee's Consumer Protection Act and the federal Lanham Act.  The complaint can be found here.

A number of things to note:

•  Tennessee amended the “Elvis Act” in 2024 to add voice to the aspects of persona covered by the statute.  A number of other jurisdictions, including New York and California, explicitly protect celebrities from unauthorized appropriation of their voice.
• Many states protect the right of publicity after death.  New York protects for 40 years after death (but only for persons who died after May 29. 2021). California's post-mortem protection lasts for 70 years.  Some states (e.g., Indiana) provide protection for 100 years. Tennessee, however has a different approach and uses something of a trademark model.  The right can theoretically last forever, as long as the owner of the right continues to use it.
• Most “voice” cases to date have involved the use of a sound-alike, not a literal use of a recorded voice.  There have been well-known cases involving imitations of the voices of Tom Waits, Bette Midler and Nancy Sinatra.  This may change with AI, but in these cases it was pretty easy for the plaintiff to prove their claim because the song performed was associated with the plaintiff and/or because permission was requested and denied.
• In the recently filed Johnny Cash case, however, it seems that the song was newly composed.  And while the singer's voice sounds a lot like Cash's (at least for the first half of the 30 second spot), at least to this untrained ear the second half does not sound all that much like Cash.  See what you think here.
• Violations of state statutory or common law rights of publicity generally do not require proof of any actual consumer confusion. Claims under the Lanham Act are more difficult, because the plaintiff has to prove both that their voice (or other aspect of persona) has sufficient fame to serve as a source identifier and that a sizeable number of people will actually be confused into believing that the owner of the rights licenses or authorized the use in question.

We will follow this claim and let you know what happens.