Editorial: A person's voice deserves legal protection from AI copycats
A Japanese court has ruled for the first time that a person's voice can be subject to legal protection. The significance is considerable.The case invo
In a landmark decision, a Japanese court has granted legal protection to individuals' voices for the first time. The case centered on voice actor Kenjiro Tsuda, who sought the removal of TikTok videos that imitated his distinctive narration without his consent. He contended that these unauthorized videos were posted with the intent to boost views and generate revenue for the perpetrators.
The court's ruling acknowledged that a voice is akin to a person's likeness and is integral to one's personality. It determined that the unauthorized use of an actor's voice to attract customers infringes upon the right of publicity, a legal concept that grants exclusive use of a personal attribute for economic gain. With the proliferation of AI-generated content on social media, the court's decision could serve as a deterrent against similar infringements.
In August, a Justice Ministry study group released guidelines on the interpretation of these rights. Although the original videos had been taken down, the ruling established that the rights to one's voice are safeguarded. This recognition reflects the growing interest in the intersection of AI and rights protection. If uncontrolled, such unauthorized use could prevent rights holders from receiving fair compensation and potentially hinder their ability to earn a living.
Consequently, voice actors and industry groups like the Japan Actors Union have advocated for legislation to formally protect this right, as voices are not covered by copyright law and no clear regulations exist. The stance of online platforms remains under scrutiny, as Tsuda's legal team initially sought information about the poster's identity, but TikTok refused to comply.
The account was reportedly removed promptly after the lawsuit was filed. The Information Distribution Platform Act mandates prompt action against false and misleading information as well as copyright infringement, highlighting the need for a suitable mechanism to enforce the right of publicity.
Written by urgent.news from The Mainichi's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
