A few days ago, the Argentine Association of Actors published a video that sounded a necessary alarm. Today, artificial intelligence can replicate a person's image, voice, and even gestures with a precision that seemed impossible just five years ago. And the question hung in the air: can the law protect someone from the unauthorised use of their own identity?
After years working in technology law and digital business, my answer is uncomfortable. It can — but it arrives too late. It is worth understanding why.
I discussed all of this in an interview for Digamos Todo, on MDZ Radio. You can watch the full interview on YouTube or read the full article on MDZ.
Why does the law always arrive late when it comes to artificial intelligence?
Technological advances over the last decade have been so rapid and dynamic that no legislation can keep pace. Law is built on social patterns that take time to settle — they are debated, voted on, and only then applied. That process, which once worked, now falls short: by the time a regulation is passed, the technology it set out to govern has already changed shape.
There is still no cutting-edge legislation on AI. The law is walking behind all of these developments, and I believe we are heading towards a scenario that very few can predict. Against that backdrop, there is no individual solution. As a community, we will have to start agreeing on parameters: what we find acceptable, what we do not, and where we want to draw the line.
The McConaughey case: registering a voice as a trademark
While regulation lags behind, some public figures have begun taking precautions on their own. The clearest example is American actor Matthew McConaughey.
What he sought to register (and why it is novel)
Until recently, trademark offices only allowed the registration of names and logos. What McConaughey did was request — anticipating the advance of AI — that he be allowed to register his tone of voice and some of his most recognisable expressions as a registered trademark in the United States.
Why does this matter? Because by turning his voice into a trademark, he gains a concrete legal tool to control it. He can block any content produced without his consent and, should he withhold that consent, prevent an AI-cloned image or video from reaching the market.
The dual driver: protecting identity and royalties
Behind this decision lie two motivations. The moral interest in protecting one's own image and voice, yes — but also the economic stakes involved. A public figure's identity generates royalties, and no one wants a third party to exploit them without permission.
Why do regulations become outdated within hours?
At this point we are no longer talking merely about automation. Generative artificial intelligence works differently: platforms reason on their own, interconnect with one another, and advance at a speed that human beings cannot slow down.
That is why ethical regulations that seek to be established become obsolete almost the moment they are passed. And this raises a fundamental question about the future of law. Rules have always been built on social patterns of behaviour. When those patterns change at this speed, it is likely that in the future we will not have a law in the form we understand today.
Freedom of expression and the right to one's own image: a real tension
In Argentina, there is a principle that complicates the picture even further. The Supreme Court places profound weight on freedom of expression, even in cases where someone's image is used without their consent.
That principle remains very much in force. To prove that it has been violated, inconvenience alone is not enough: it is necessary to demonstrate concrete harm to a person's image and to build a solid body of legal grounds in order to halt that communication. It is not a formality — it is a case that must be constructed.
Why stopping content today is almost impossible
Before AI, stopping it was difficult but possible
Before AI, we had already seen cases involving models affected by edited images of their bodies. In several of those cases, the content was successfully blocked online. It was difficult, but possible.
Why the damage today multiplies before the court order arrives
With today's technology, the situation has changed completely. Given the way the internet is structured, once a video generated with AI is uploaded, stopping it becomes extremely complex. The courts do not have the means to simultaneously instruct the vast number of servers and IP addresses circulating that content to take it down. The damage can multiply before a court order even exists.
The way forward is not only legal: ethical culture and the example of Mendoza
Teaching ethics from an early age
If the law is not enough, what do we have left? For me, much of the answer lies in culture. Building ethical awareness from a young age — especially among the young — will carry as much weight as, or more than, any regulation.
Mendoza: an exception that shows the way
The training of those who administer justice also matters. In Argentina there are still many courts with little clarity about what these technologies involve. Mendoza is a notable exception: there is a community of lawyers and judges, led by Dr. Mario Adaro, that is very well-informed about developments in artificial intelligence. Not every jurisdiction in the country is at that level, and that is one of the challenges ahead.
What to do while the law catches up
The debate has only just begun, and it will not be resolved by a single reform. In the meantime, if your image, your voice, or your personal brand have commercial value, it is better to act in advance rather than wait for a dispute to catch you without the tools to respond.
If you would like to review how to protect your digital identity against the use of AI, contact me. This is the kind of problem that is far better addressed before the damage appears.
