ELVIS Act

Photo Credit: Jordan Whitfield

Do the ELVIS Act’s voice protections extend to soundalike vocals recorded by humans? We’re about to find out, as the Johnny Cash estate is suing the Coca-Cola Company for allegedly violating the Tennessee law.

The corresponding complaint just recently made its way to a federal court, roughly 20 months after the Volunteer State adopted sweeping voice and likeness protections. Those protections were, of course, tailored for the AI age and designed to counter the growing prevalence of unauthorized machine-powered voice replication.

But at the top level, the law, adding voice to an existing publicity right, only confirmed that each “individual has a property right in the use of that individual’s name, photograph, voice, or likeness in any medium in any manner.” It also laid the groundwork for civil remedies in the event of alleged violations.

Enter the Cash estate’s ELVIS Act suit, which is taking aim at Coca-Cola for allegedly incorporating the “Hurt” artist’s voice – or more precisely an alleged soundalike version thereof – into an advert sans permission.

Promoting Coke and college football, the overarching ad-agency-conceived campaign set sail in late August and produced a spot entitled “Go the Distance,” per the suit. Still live on YouTube, the 30-second commercial allegedly features a “singing voice” that “sounds remarkably like the Voice of Johnny Cash.”

Besides not being the Man in Black’s “actual voice,” the soundalike rendition, as mentioned, doesn’t seem to have been generated by AI. Rather, Coca-Cola (via the relevant agency) allegedly tapped a non-party “Johnny Cash tribute singer” to record the vocals.

And the way the Cash estate sees things, the agency allegedly “selected the Sound-Alike Singer to sing the vocal track for the specific purpose of ensuring that the Infringing Ad sounded as close as possible to” the real deal.

In addition to suing for an alleged ELVIS Act violation, Team Cash is accusing the defendant company of violating the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and the Lanham Act.

All told, the estate is looking to decommission the ad campaign, secure damages, and obtain a piece of the profits from the “unlawful conduct.” DMN reached out to Coca-Cola for comment but didn’t immediately receive a response. As for the litigation’s next step, an initial case management conference is scheduled for early March.

A couple closing questions: At the end of the day, a voice is a voice; is the self-described Cash impersonator himself protected under the ELVIS Act? And would agreeing with Coca-Cola’s view effectively bar the individual from recording for sync?