Our mission is to provide innovative solutions and highly specialized legal advice for clients facing the most complicated legal and business challenges in Mexico.
OLIVARES is continuously at the forefront of new practice areas concerning copyright, litigation, regulatory, anti-counterfeiting, plant varieties, domain names, digital rights, and internet-related matters, and the firm has been responsible for precedent-setting decisions in patents, copyrights, and trademarks.
Our firm is committed to developing the strongest group of legal professionals to manage the level of complexity and interdisciplinary orientation that clients require. During the first decade of the 21st century, the team successfully led efforts to reshape IP laws and change regulatory authorizations procedures in Mexico, not only through thought leadership and lobbying efforts, but the firm has also won several landmark and precedent-setting cases at the Mexican Federal and Supreme Courts levels, including in constitutional matters.
On May 15, 2026, one day after its publication in the Official Federal Gazette,
the amendment to the Federal Copyright Law (LFDA) regarding the rights of
performing artists entered into force. The reform arrived with a politically
attractive narrative: shielding dubbing voice actors —and artistic talent in
general— from the cloning of image and voice through artificial intelligence
(AI).
Luis Schmidt’s articles from OLIVARES are most popular:
within Intellectual Property topic(s)
OLIVARES are most popular:
within Intellectual Property, Technology and Tax topic(s)
On May 15, 2026, one day after its publication in the Official Federal Gazette, the amendment to the Federal Copyright Law (LFDA) regarding the rights of performing artists entered into force. The reform arrived with a politically attractive narrative: shielding dubbing voice actors —and artistic talent in general— from the cloning of image and voice through artificial intelligence (AI). The demand was legitimate. The result, however, is a provision that treats the symptom without understanding the disease, one that symbolically protects the artist from the machine but, in the process, leaves them —along with every non-artist individual— unprotected against other persons.
Worse still, in its eagerness to become a pioneer country in regulating AI, the legislature acted without even defining the technology it purports to regulate and without equipping the legal system with the instruments needed to produce certainty. In the pages that follow, we analyze four of the most pressing problems with this reform.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
