Johnny Cashwho died in 2003, remains one of the most recognizable singers in the history of country music. His low baritone was and is a trademark, and the fund managing his estate believes that Coca-Cola violated the artist’s rights by using a voice confusingly resembling his vocals in the “Fan Work Is Thirsty Work” campaign ad during the 2025 NCAA football season. The lawsuit cited ELVIS Acta law introduced in Tennessee in 2024 that protects a deceased person’s voice from commercial use without the consent of the heirs or the trust managing the estate.
-
The case of Ryszard Rynkowski returns. The court reported new news
-
Sylwia Grzeszczak and Liber together again! Comments from delighted fans poured in under the video
“Theft of an artist’s voice is theft of his or her integrity, identity and humanity,” wrote Tim Warnock, a lawyer for the fund. “The Fund is bringing this lawsuit to protect Johnny Cash’s voice and send a message in defense of all creators whose music enriches our lives.”
Advertising and the role of the Johnny Cash imitator
He was a voice actor in a Coca-Cola commercial Shawn Barkera professional performer specializing in onstage tributes to Cash. Barker has been performing “The Man in Black: A Tribute to Johnny Cash” for over two decades, traveling the world sharing the music and story of the legendary artist. His manager, Joey Waterman, told Billboard: “We were thrilled when Shawn was approached to participate in this commercial.” He added: “Shawn Barker has been touring the Johnny Cash show for twenty years, sharing his music and stories with fans of all ages.”
The fund emphasizes that in the past it twice granted permission to use Cash’s voice in Super Bowl commercials, but in the case of the Coca-Cola campaign, the company “did not even ask for a license.” The lawsuit states that the ad was intended to benefit from “the good generated by Cash’s original voice” and that the company did not pay remuneration or obtain permission to use the imitator’s vocals.
Johnny Cash’s estate is seeking an injunction against the advertising and damages arising from violations of the ELVIS Act, as well as damages for alleged violations of the Tennessee consumer law and false endorsement laws. In the fund’s opinion, the case has a broader significance because it concerns the protection of artists’ rights after death and the method of using their achievements in commercial campaigns. The consequences may concern both Cash’s image and a precedent for other cases in which the use of a distinctive voice without the consent of the fund or heirs becomes the subject of legal and media discussion.
So far, Coca-Cola has not commented on the lawsuit. The Fund notes that the company repeatedly concluded licenses to use the voice and image of other artists, so it could not act in good faith. This is the first such high-profile trial based on the ELVIS Act, and its result may set standards for the protection of voice as an element of artistic legacy and image in the music and advertising industries.