Celebrity encounters with artificial intelligence have resulted in complex situations, leading to an increasing number of disputes being brought before courts. These cases often revolve around deepfakes that distort a person’s likeness or voice, as well as AI companies using books or performances without authorization for their models. The nature of the legal complaints may differ, but the common theme is the quest for control over personal identity, creative output, and technology’s usage of both.
Here are some individuals and properties that have taken legal action regarding deepfakes and AI applications. Their strategies span from asserting their right to privacy (right of publicity) and copyright infringement claims to allegations of consumer deception. Where updates exist, you’ll find out what the courts have decided so far or how the conflicts have been resolved.
George Carlin’s Estate
The mansion took legal action against a comedy special created by AI, claiming it exploited a deceased comedian’s name, vocal traits, and comedic style. The lawsuit stated that the program used recordings of his previous work to generate a more extensive routine mimicking his voice, without obtaining necessary authorization. Additionally, it argued that the title and promotion capitalized on the comedian’s reputation and recognition.
As a dedicated film enthusiast, I found myself involved in a situation where my beloved idol’s legacy was at stake. The matter concluded with the removal of certain materials associated with him, and I agreed to refrain from using his name, voice, or likeness without prior consent. This settlement served as an early precedent, ensuring that the estate can protect against synthetic imitations relying on a deceased performer’s catalog, thus preserving their legacy for generations to come.
Sarah Silverman
In simpler terms, Silverman accused AI creators of using her books in their data collection process without permission. The allegations detailed massive text extraction and explained how the AI’s responses could mirror the protected expressions found in the original works.
She took legal action to claim compensation and obtain court rulings to prevent any future misuse of her books in educational settings. The legal proceedings progressed following initial petitions, ensuring that the main allegations concerning unauthorized duplication remained active.
Richard Kadrey
Kadrey became a joint party in legal actions against authors who assert that whole books are employed to educate extensive language models. The court documents detailed the process of assembling the training materials and how the generated text could resemble unique phrases or storylines found in his books.
The parties are requesting financial compensation, as well as court orders mandating modifications to training methods. Additionally, they are advocating for the removal of any existing digital copies of the books within the developers’ systems.
Christopher Golden
Golden’s assertions align closely with wider accusations against authors, who are alleged to be intentionally feeding unauthorized books into their AI training processes. The grievances encompass two main issues: firstly, the act of copying during the ingestion phase, and secondly, the potential for outputs that could rival or even replace legitimate works in market competition.
The group, including him, is asking for compensation and a court order compelling the developers to either acquire licenses or cease utilizing protected materials. Additionally, they aim to set a precedent that mass reproduction of books for educational purposes does not fall under the category of fair use.
Mona Awad
Awad filed a lawsuit claiming that her novels were used without permission for AI model training. The court documents detail instances where entire books supposedly ended up in datasets, enabling these AI models to generate comprehensive summaries and texts closely mirroring copyrighted expressions.
The individual’s request to the court includes two main elements:
1. Compensation (damages) for something that has occurred.
2. Removal of their works from any current collections used for training purposes (deletion).
3. Prohibition against using these works in the future unless express permission is granted.
Paul Tremblay
Tremblay was accused, like Awad, of plagiarism – copying entire books to teach commercial models. The complaints detail how these models can replicate specific narrative details from the original works.
In simpler terms, he wants compensation for past misuse and a court order that prevents others from using his novels for training in the future. This request also includes the removal of any existing copies and changes in the way developers handle novel usage moving forward.
George R. R. Martin
As a passionate movie critic, I found myself compelled to take part in a unified stand against an innovative AI developer whose questionable practices have raised serious concerns. This developer has been accused of crossing the line by employing tactics that mimic entire books for model-building purposes. The complaint filed on my behalf outlines substantial claims of copyright infringement, and further allegations regarding violations linked to training materials and subsequent outputs.
In simpler terms, the lawsuit aims to claim both compensatory damages (due based on law) and reparations for actual losses, as well as requesting court orders to prohibit unauthorized usage. Additionally, it is asking developers to install measures that prevent the duplication of copyrighted content.
John Grisham
John Grisham is one of the well-known authors who share similar prominence. In the legal dispute, it’s contended that mass collection and retention of books for training purposes infringes on the exclusive rights of writers, and potentially undermines legitimate licensing markets.
The proposed solutions involve compensation for damages, ongoing judicial supervision of any future training using books, and the removal of existing copies, along with a restriction against producing outputs containing copyrighted content.
Jodi Picoult
Picoult asserted that her novels had been unknowingly utilized by a group of authors, alleging that collections of books had been compiled and employed to educate and improve commercial systems without their explicit permission.
In simpler terms, she’s asking the court for compensation and orders (injunctions) prohibiting further usage of her works. Additionally, the filing requests the court to mandate clear disclosures regarding the training data used in this case, which includes books.
David Baldacci
Baldacci argues that it’s illegal to fully duplicate books for educational purposes, a claim that aligns with the idea that such training materials can replace official derivatives and authorized summaries, potentially infringing on copyright laws. The lawsuit highlights how these training outputs function as alternatives and thereby challenge the legitimacy of authorized content.
In this situation, he is demanding compensation as well as a court injunction that prevents developers from utilizing his writings without obtaining a license first. Additionally, the lawsuit asks for the removal of any saved copies that are currently housed within the model system’s infrastructure.
Jonathan Franzen
In a joint operation, allegations have surfaced that Franzen’s novels were incorporated into training materials unauthorizedly. The documents specify that the use of entire texts surpasses the limits set by copyright laws and that these materials may replicate protected literary work.
The lawsuit aims for compensation, future adjustments to training practices, and a firm judicial decree prohibiting mass book copying for training purposes. Additionally, it requests a definitive judgment declaring such actions as unlawful.
Michael Chabon
Chabon initiated a standalone legal action against another developer for allegedly using identical training methods, claiming that copying entire books without permission infringes on copyright laws and leads to outputs very similar to the original works.
He’s aiming to obtain compensation, a court order prohibiting the developer from utilizing his books without consent, and the removal of existing copies, along with safeguards to prevent further duplication of copyrighted material in the future.
Ta-Nehisi Coates
Coates became part of a lawsuit filed by authors, claiming they copied entire books without permission to use in model training. According to the documents, the company profited financially from this practice, but the original writers received neither payment nor control over their work.
The requested resolution encompasses compensatory costs, court decrees mandating licensing restrictions or cease-and-desist actions for continued usage, and also involves petitioning for the exclusion of the contested books from any educational or reference material databases.
David Henry Hwang
Hwang filed a lawsuit, claiming that his works were utilized in the development of large language models without his permission. The lawsuit highlights the discovery of entire texts within the datasets used and outputs that mirror protected sections.
He is seeking compensation and a court order prohibiting further usage of the materials, as well as demanding the removal of all existing copies and assurances for protection against any future replication.
Matthew Klam
Klam’s lawsuit centers around the use of his books as part of training datasets, and the potential for outputs that mirror his copyrighted writing. The legal documents detail how entire book texts made their way into the developers’ databases.
He’s requesting compensation, as well as court orders, to have his work removed from the training systems. Additionally, the lawsuit proposes alterations in the developers’ policies regarding where they obtain their training data and how it should be documented.
Rachel Louise Snyder
Snyder’s lawsuit claims that her books have been widely used, without permission, to teach a profit-driven AI system. The court documents detail how the developer collected and utilized these works during the process of creating their models.
She aims to receive compensation, secure a court order to prohibit the continued usage of her titles, and remove existing copies. Additionally, she demands protective measures to prevent any future duplication of the protected content.
Ayelet Waldman
Walдman became part of the group of claimants, asserting that her books had been incorporated without permission into unauthorized training material databases. The document outlines how reading entire books grants developers an unfair commercial edge without adequately compensating authors for their work.
She requests financial assistance, court orders preventing the usage or further issuance of relevant licenses, and an order to take down her works from all datasets used in training. Her complaint additionally calls for these training-related datasets to no longer include her works.
Paul Skye Lehrman
After finding out that a voice AI company had developed a synthesized voice replicating his own, which they were selling without his consent in various projects, Lehrman decided to take legal action against them. According to the lawsuit, the firm illegally used recordings of him and created an imitation of his vocal performance, passing it off as authentic.
In this instance, he is asserting his right to control how his likeness is used commercially and also making additional claims. He’s seeking compensation as well as a court order to stop such activity. The case contends that voice cloning for commercial purposes should only be done with the express consent and permission of the original performer.
Please suggest other names you believe should be included in this list, and let us know which result or development you’re most eagerly awaiting by sharing your thoughts in the comments below.
Read More
- Gold Rate Forecast
- QNT PREDICTION. QNT cryptocurrency
- DC Comics Cancels Gretchen Felker-Martin’s Red Hood After One Issue Following Charlie Kirk Comments
- Why GE Vernova Stock Popped Today
- NEXO PREDICTION. NEXO cryptocurrency
- Are Katy Perry and Justin Trudeau Dating? Montreal Dinner and Park Stroll Spark Romance Rumors
- Joby Aviation: 2026’s Sky-High Gamble or Just Another Unicorn Fad?
- Amazon’s AI Gambit: A Tale of Clouds, Chips, and Claude
- Every promo code from July 2025’s Pokémon Presents
- The Quiet Triumph of Micron Technology: A Subtle Market Victory
2025-09-12 04:46