August 2024
China's First Case of Personality Rights Infringement Involving AI-Generated Voices (Mainland China)
August 2024
Jane Tsai and Lihui Jiang
With the widespread application of artificial intelligence (AI) across various fields, especially in the internet industry, generative software has rapidly proliferated, leading to numerous potential legal disputes. On April 23, 2024, the Beijing Internet Court issued a judgment in China’s first case involving the infringement of personality rights by AI-generated voices. This ruling serves as a significant reminder and reference for the application of AI and the mitigation of associated risks.
Case Summary
The Plaintiff, Yin, is a voice actor who discovered that his voice-over work was widely distributed across several well-known apps. It was determined that the voices in these works originated from a text-to-speech platform operated by the first Defendant, a Beijing-based intelligent technology company.
The second Defendant, a Beijing-based cultural media company, commissioned the Plaintiff to record audio products. Subsequently, the audio was provided to the third Defendant, a software company, which processed it using artificial intelligence to create the text-to-speech products in question. These products were later sold on a cloud service platform operated by the fourth Defendant, a Shanghai-based network technology company. The first Defendant purchased the products from the third Defendant through the fifth defendant, a Beijing-based technology development company, and utilized them on their platform.
Ultimately, the court ruled that the first and third Defendants should apologize to the Plaintiff, while the second and third Defendants should compensate the plaintiff with a total of 250,000 yuan for damages[1].
Key Disputes
－Plaintiff's Rights Concerning AI-Generated Voices
According to Article 1023 of the Civil Code, the protection of an individual's voice is governed by the relevant provisions concerning portrait rights. Article 1018 of the same Code defines a portrait as an external image that allows for the recognition of a specific natural person when reflected on a particular medium such as photographs, sculptures, or paintings, etc. Therefore, whether referring to a voice or a portrait, the key aspect is recognizability, which refers to the ability to identify a specific individual.
In this case, the court determined that if an AI-generated voice can be associated by the general public or relevant audiences with a specific individual, it can be considered recognizable. The court's examination confirmed that the AI-generated voice closely matched the Plaintiff’s tone, intonation, and pronunciation style, thereby establishing a connection to the Plaintiff and identifying their identity. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s voice rights extend to the AI-generated voice in this case.
－Liability of the Defendants
The court ruled that although the second Defendant, a Beijing-based cultural media company, had commissioned the Plaintiff to record audio products and thus held copyright over those audio products, this does not grant them the right to authorize others to use the Plaintiff's voice in an AI-generated manner. The actions of the second and third Defendants in utilizing the Plaintiff's voice with AI without the Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, lack a legal basis, and their defense regarding legitimate authorization is untenable. They should bear corresponding legal responsibility. On the other hand, the first, fourth and fifth Defendants are not liable for damages due to the absence of subjective fault on their part.
Conclusion
China's Civil Code includes voice within the framework of personality rights protection. This case is the first to establish that if an AI-generated voice is recognizable, the individual retains rights to their voice. Given the rapid advancement of the internet and artificial intelligence technologies, companies must remain vigilant in mitigating risks when developing new tech products. In addition to preventing infringements on voice rights, it is essential to consider potential legal risks associated with portrait rights, name rights, reputation rights, privacy rights, and copyright.
[1] Beijing Internet Court: First Instance Verdict in the Nation's First Case of AI-Generated Voice Personality Rights Infringement: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/_GxGaG6Q2NYHJWQuOtMyrQ
The contents of all newsletters of Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners (Content) available on the webpage belong to and remain with Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners. All rights are reserved by Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners, and the Content may not be reproduced, downloaded, disseminated, published, or transferred in any form or by any means, except with the prior permission of Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners.
The Content is for informational purposes only and is not offered as legal or professional advice on any particular issue or case. The Content may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners and the editors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The contributing authors' opinions do not represent the position of Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners. If the reader has any suggestions or questions, please do not hesitate to contact Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners.
Jane Tsai and Lihui Jiang
With the widespread application of artificial intelligence (AI) across various fields, especially in the internet industry, generative software has rapidly proliferated, leading to numerous potential legal disputes. On April 23, 2024, the Beijing Internet Court issued a judgment in China’s first case involving the infringement of personality rights by AI-generated voices. This ruling serves as a significant reminder and reference for the application of AI and the mitigation of associated risks.
Case Summary
The Plaintiff, Yin, is a voice actor who discovered that his voice-over work was widely distributed across several well-known apps. It was determined that the voices in these works originated from a text-to-speech platform operated by the first Defendant, a Beijing-based intelligent technology company.
The second Defendant, a Beijing-based cultural media company, commissioned the Plaintiff to record audio products. Subsequently, the audio was provided to the third Defendant, a software company, which processed it using artificial intelligence to create the text-to-speech products in question. These products were later sold on a cloud service platform operated by the fourth Defendant, a Shanghai-based network technology company. The first Defendant purchased the products from the third Defendant through the fifth defendant, a Beijing-based technology development company, and utilized them on their platform.
Ultimately, the court ruled that the first and third Defendants should apologize to the Plaintiff, while the second and third Defendants should compensate the plaintiff with a total of 250,000 yuan for damages[1].
Key Disputes
－Plaintiff's Rights Concerning AI-Generated Voices
According to Article 1023 of the Civil Code, the protection of an individual's voice is governed by the relevant provisions concerning portrait rights. Article 1018 of the same Code defines a portrait as an external image that allows for the recognition of a specific natural person when reflected on a particular medium such as photographs, sculptures, or paintings, etc. Therefore, whether referring to a voice or a portrait, the key aspect is recognizability, which refers to the ability to identify a specific individual.
In this case, the court determined that if an AI-generated voice can be associated by the general public or relevant audiences with a specific individual, it can be considered recognizable. The court's examination confirmed that the AI-generated voice closely matched the Plaintiff’s tone, intonation, and pronunciation style, thereby establishing a connection to the Plaintiff and identifying their identity. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s voice rights extend to the AI-generated voice in this case.
－Liability of the Defendants
The court ruled that although the second Defendant, a Beijing-based cultural media company, had commissioned the Plaintiff to record audio products and thus held copyright over those audio products, this does not grant them the right to authorize others to use the Plaintiff's voice in an AI-generated manner. The actions of the second and third Defendants in utilizing the Plaintiff's voice with AI without the Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, lack a legal basis, and their defense regarding legitimate authorization is untenable. They should bear corresponding legal responsibility. On the other hand, the first, fourth and fifth Defendants are not liable for damages due to the absence of subjective fault on their part.
Conclusion
China's Civil Code includes voice within the framework of personality rights protection. This case is the first to establish that if an AI-generated voice is recognizable, the individual retains rights to their voice. Given the rapid advancement of the internet and artificial intelligence technologies, companies must remain vigilant in mitigating risks when developing new tech products. In addition to preventing infringements on voice rights, it is essential to consider potential legal risks associated with portrait rights, name rights, reputation rights, privacy rights, and copyright.
[1] Beijing Internet Court: First Instance Verdict in the Nation's First Case of AI-Generated Voice Personality Rights Infringement: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/_GxGaG6Q2NYHJWQuOtMyrQ
The contents of all newsletters of Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners (Content) available on the webpage belong to and remain with Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners. All rights are reserved by Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners, and the Content may not be reproduced, downloaded, disseminated, published, or transferred in any form or by any means, except with the prior permission of Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners.
The Content is for informational purposes only and is not offered as legal or professional advice on any particular issue or case. The Content may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners and the editors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The contributing authors' opinions do not represent the position of Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners. If the reader has any suggestions or questions, please do not hesitate to contact Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners.
