Tokyo
District Court Recognizes Voice as Potentially Protected Under the Right of Publicity in AI Voice Imitation Case
On September 30,
2026, the Tokyo District Court in Japan addressed a legal dispute involving
AI-generated voice imitation, recognizing that a person's
voice, like their likeness, may be protected under the right of publicity.
(Background)
Japanese voice
actor Kenjiro Tsuda (津田健次郎) filed a claim against TikTok's
operator, seeking the removal of videos that allegedly used an AI-generated
voice resembling his own.
Between July 2024
and September 2025, the TikTok account in question had published 188 videos
featuring urban legends, ghost stories, and other mysterious topics. Tsuda
argued that the videos infringed his right of publicity and violated Japan's Unfair
Competition Prevention Act. He sought their removal on the grounds that the
unauthorized use of a voice resembling his own could mislead viewers and
exploit his professional reputation.
(Key Findings and Legal Issues)
The Tokyo District
Court recognized that a person's voice, much like their image or likeness, can
represent an individual's identity and may therefore qualify for protection
under the right of publicity.
The court
explained that when a performer's voice has commercial appeal—the ability to
attract customers or promote products and services—unauthorized use of that
voice for the purpose of exploiting its commercial value may constitute an
infringement of publicity rights.
This recognition
is particularly relevant to voice actors, whose distinctive voices are often
central to their professional identity and commercial value.
Tsuda's
representatives argued that the AI-generated narration closely resembled his
voice, potentially leading viewers to believe that he had personally narrated
the videos. They maintained that the videos attracted audiences by taking
advantage of his recognizable voice, thereby infringing his right of publicity.
They also argued that the use of the voice could violate Japan's Unfair
Competition Prevention Act, which prohibits certain practices that create
confusion with another person's goods or business.
TikTok's operator
disputed these claims, arguing that the voice was not generated using Tsuda's
actual voice recordings. Instead, it maintained that the audio was a generic
male voice created by training AI on a third party's voice and did not
sufficiently resemble Tsuda's voice to constitute an infringement.
The dispute raised
important legal questions: How closely must an AI-generated
voice resemble a real performer's voice to infringe their rights? And when does
the use of a synthetic voice amount to exploiting someone's commercial appeal? However,
the court did not resolve these questions in this case. Why the Court Dismissed
the Removal Request
During the
proceedings, the account owner deleted the TikTok account on May 29, 2026, and
did not request its restoration within the platform's 30-day recovery period. As
a result, the court accepted that the videos had also been removed from
TikTok's servers by approximately June 28, 2026.
The court
concluded that even if TikTok's operator might previously have been required to
remove the videos, there was no longer any content to remove by the time oral
arguments concluded. It therefore dismissed Tsuda's removal request.
Importantly, the dismissal did not mean that
the court considered the AI-generated voice lawful. The court did not
determine whether the voice actually resembled Tsuda's, whether it exploited
his commercial appeal, or whether the videos infringed his publicity rights or
violated the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.
Tsuda's legal
representatives highlighted the significance of the ruling, noting that the
court had expressly recognized the possibility of protecting a person's voice
under the right of publicity.
Intellectual
property experts have also pointed out that several important questions remain
unanswered, particularly how courts should assess similarity between
AI-generated voices and real individuals, and what constitutes unauthorized
exploitation of a voice's commercial value. These issues will likely require
further clarification through future cases.
As AI
voice-generation technology becomes increasingly sophisticated, the distinction
between synthetic speech and recognizable human voices is becoming more
difficult to draw.
This case
highlights an emerging challenge for intellectual property law when a voice can
be digitally recreated how should the law protect the identity and commercial
value behind it?
 |
| gettyimagesbank.com |
<Sources>
https://www.courts.go.jp/assets/hanrei/hanrei-pdf-97097.pdf
---------------------------------------------------
<Source of this post>
https://www.kiip.re.kr/board/trend/view.do?bd_gb=trend&bd_cd=1&bd_item=0&po_item_gb=JP&po_no=24766
