> Simultaneously - I own my words, either written or spoken. This isn't really all that different from copyright, and I'm rather surprised we don't more regularly bring that reasoning to bear on this issue. If I give them to you in a private conversation, then those words are for you to hear. If you record them without my consent, then you're violating my (copy)right. If a company takes those words without my consent, then that company is violating my copyright.

The copyright situation is interesting, at least under US law, because is most cases where someone on the street records you speaking you will not copyright. That's because of a loophole in the way the copyright statute works.

People commonly believe that when the US changed from copyright coming into existence when you register your work they switched to it coming into existence as soon as your create the work, but that is not correct. 17 USC 102(a) tells us that copyright subsists in works that are

>> [...] fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

But what does it mean to be "fixed" in a tangible medium of expression? For that we must turn to 17 USC 101:

>> A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.

Their recording of you is not "by or under the authority of the author" so is not a fixation, so your work is not copyrighted yet.

Congress recognized this loophole and partly closed it in 1994, with 17 USC 1101, which is titled "Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos". This closes it in the case where you are, say, a street musician and someone records your song which is not yet copyrighted because you have not yet recorded it or written down the sheet music or tab. It gives such a musician essentially the same rights and remedies they would have if they had copyright.

But that is explicitly for music. Unless you start singing everything you say in public it won't help you. Even if you do that, those devices that just immediately transcribe what they hear probably would not be covered, because no matter how creative a melody you come up with to sing "I'll have a medium Big Mac meal with a coke please" to, they will just be recording your lyrics. US requires a certain level of creativity in a work for it to be copyrightable and "I'll have a medium Big Mac meal with a coke please" is probably not going to make the cut.

You best defense, if you want to have a chance of federal copyright applying, is to wear something of your own that records you. Then your words are fixed under the authority of the author (you) as soon as you speak them, and so if they do meet the bar for being copyrightable they will be copyrighted.

There is also state common-law copyright law to consider. Federal copyright law preempts state copyright law, and with it so easy to get federal copyright you don't really tend to hear much about state copyright law.

However, that loophole that makes federal copyright law not attach also makes it so state copyright law is not preempted for works that fall into the federal loophole. State common law copyright tends to be more generous or expansive than federal copyright, so this is probably your best copyright bet.

This suggests that you may want to actually avoid recording yourself, to avoid any chance of getting federal copyright and thus having state common law copyright law preempted.

I did a little searching, and apparently whether you should record yourself or not has been debated and analyzed in other contexts like stand-up comedy performances and public lectures.

Tech companies are trying to shift the concept of privacy again