Landmark decision for the copyright protection of human voice in China

In the era of AI and digital transformation, the rights of individuals, especially concerning their voice and likeness, are increasingly significant. The Civil Code of China stipulates the protection of voice rights in the same way as for portrait rights, recognizing them as special personality interests. 

This case explores the boundaries of these rights in the context of AI-generated content.

Case

Yin, a voice actor, discovered through a friend that her voice was being used without her permission on several well-known apps. These apps featured works that incorporated her voice, created using a TTS product offered by Beijing Intelligent Technology Company, a firm providing text-to-speech (TTS) services. 

The TTS product allowed users to input text and convert it to speech by adjusting various parameters, effectively mimicking Yin's voice.

Yin started a lawsuit in front of the Beijing People's Court, alleging Beijing Intelligent Technology Company (Defendant 1) to use her voice recordings without her consent, leading to unauthorized use and distribution.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s actions violated her intellectual property rights and right to publicity. Furthermore, Yin asserted that the unauthorized use of her voice caused her economic losses and damaged her professional reputation.

Background

Yin was previously engaged by a Beijing Cultural Media Company (Defendant 2), to record audio. Defendant 2 retained the copyright to these recordings. Subsequently, Defendant 2 provided the recordings to a Software Company (Defendant 3), granting it the right to use, copy, and modify the data for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.

Defendant 3 utilized Yin's recorded audio as raw material for AI processing, developing a text-to-speech (TTS) product. This product, incorporating Yin’s voice, was then sold to the public through a cloud service platform operated by Network Technology Company based in Shanghai (Defendant 4).

Yin provided evidence through voice screening and tracing technologies, demonstrating that the voice used in the TTS product was indeed derived from her recordings.

Testimonies from users who had used the TTS product confirmed that the voice closely resembled Yin's. Furthermore, expert analysis corroborated that the voice in the TTS product matched Yin’s voiceprints.

Yin's legal team contended that while Defendant 2 held the copyright to the original recordings, the subsequent use of her voice for AI-generated products exceeded the scope of her consent. They maintained that the use and commercial distribution of her voice through AI technology required additional authorization.

They also stressed that Yin's voice was a significant part of her professional identity and livelihood.

The court examined the following:

Contractual Agreements: The terms of the contract between Yin and Defendant 2, and the licensing agreement between Defendant 2 and Defendant 3.

Intellectual Property Laws: Applicable laws regarding the use of an individual's voice and likeness in commercial products.

Scope of Consent: Whether the use of Yin’s voice in the TTS product exceeded the scope of consent given by the plaintiff.

Technological Evidence: Detailed analysis of the technology used by the defendant, its capacity to replicate Yin’s voice, the process by which the TTS product was created and the extent to which it utilized Yin’s voice recordings.

Precedents: Previous cases involving unauthorized use of voices and likenesses in digital and AI-generated content.

After examination, the court ruled in favor of Yin, finding that the defendant had indeed used her voice without authorization, stating that the defendants’ use of Yin’s voice in the AI-generated TTS product went beyond the initial consent provided. 

The ruling included:

Injunction: The defendants were ordered to cease using Yin's voice in their TTS product immediately.

Damages: Yin was awarded with a total of 250,000 RMB (around 34,500 US$) for the unauthorized use of her voice, covering both economic losses and compensation for damage to her professional reputation.

Public apology: The defendants were required to issue a public apology to Yin for the unauthorized use of her voice.

Implications

This case highlights several critical points regarding the intersection of technology and intellectual property:

• Rights of Voice Actors: Reinforces the protection of voice actors’ rights in the digital and AI age, ensuring that their voices cannot be used without consent.
• Regulation of AI Products: Sets a precedent for the regulation of AI and TTS products, ensuring that they do not infringe on individual rights.

• Consumer Awareness: Increases awareness among users of such technologies about the importance of respecting intellectual property rights.

The Yin vs. Beijing Intelligent Technology Company case is a landmark decision emphasizing the protection of creative professionals’ rights in an era where technology can easily replicate human voices. 

This ruling emphasizes the need for clear and comprehensive consent in contracts involving personal data and technological applications. In fact, it clarifies that authorization for traditional recordings does not extend to AI processing and commercialization, setting a crucial precedent for future cases. 

This case will likely influence both legal practices and industry standards, ensuring better protection for individuals in the rapidly evolving digital landscape.