The Beijing Internet Court ruled on China’s first case concerning the infringement of personality rights through AI-generated voices earlier this year. The court clearly established that the protection of a natural person’s voice rights extends to AI-generated voices if they are identifiable. Since neither party appealed the initial decision, the ruling has now become final.
Case overview
The plaintiff Yin XX, a voice actor, discovered that her voice had been synthesized using AI and was being sold on a platform operated by the defendant, an intelligent technology company. Yin sued this company along with four other defendants, claiming that their actions significantly infringed upon her voice rights. She demanded an immediate halt to the infringement, a formal apology, and compensation for economic damages.
All five defendants denied any wrongdoing. The intelligent technology company argued that the voice products on its platform were legally obtained from a software company, which in turn claimed that the voices were sourced from a cultural media company. The media company stated that it had previously collaborated with Yin and owned the copyrights to the recordings. The other two defendants, the platform operators and product distributors, also denied any infringement.
After trial, the court determined that a natural person’s voice, characterized by unique vocal patterns, timbre, and frequency, is distinctive and can evoke thoughts or emotions related to that person. If an AI-generated voice can lead the general public to associate the voice with a particular individual, it is considered identifiable. In this case, the software company had developed a text-to-speech product using Yin’s voice. The court’s examination revealed that the AI-generated voice closely matched Yin’s tone, pitch, and speaking style, making it easily identifiable as hers. As a result, the court concluded that Yin’s voice rights extended to the AI-generated voice.
Although the media company held copyrights to the recordings, it did not have the right to authorize AI synthesis of Yin’s voice without her knowledge and consent. Consequently, the unauthorized use of Yin’s voice by the media and software companies constituted an infringement of her voice rights, causing her harm for which they were held legally responsible.
The court ordered the intelligent technology company and the software company to issue an apology to Yin, and mandated that the media and software companies collectively pay RMB 250,000 in damages. Neither party appealed the verdict after the initial ruling.
