Beijing Internet Court Issues Judgement in First AI Voice Infringement Case
Published 1 May 2024
Sarah Xuan
On April 23, 2024, the Beijing Internet Court passed judgment on the first AI voice infringement case in China. The case involved the application of AI technology in text-to-speech products and the protection of voice rights. In the trial, the court found that the plaintiff, a dubbing artist, had clear rights and interests in his voice. The defendants, however, used the plaintiff’s voice for the development of AI text-to-speech products without obtaining the plaintiff’s legal authorization, and this act was deemed to be an infringement.
The court finally ruled that the defendant be required to issue a written apology to the plaintiff and compensate the plaintiff for various losses totaling RMB 250,000. The judgment of this case has a specific warning effect on the future application of AI technology in the sound field, as well as the protection of the rights and interests of sound.
Background
The plaintiff, Yin, is a voice artist who has participated in the recording of several audio works. However, last year, he was surprised to find that his voice had been processed by AI technology and sold publicly on the “Magic Voice Workshop” App under the pseudonym “Magic Xiao Xuan” without his authorization. Yin filed a lawsuit against a Beijing Intelligent Company, the operating body of “Magic Voice Workshop”, and five other defendants to the Beijing Internet Court on the grounds of violating the right to sound and filed a claim to stop the infringement of the right to sound, apologizing, and compensating for the economic loss and moral damage.
In the face of the allegations, all five defendants firmly denied infringement, and each put forward their defense arguments:1) The Beijing Intelligent Company claimed that the sound products on its App originated from a Software Company of the defendant and had legal authorization;2) The Software Company, on the other hand, argued that the sound material they used came from the defendant, the Audio-Visual Culture and Media Company;3) For their part, the Audio-Visual Culture and Media Company claimed that they had a previous relationship with the plaintiffs and had agreed that the copyright in the works recorded by the plaintiffs would belong to them;4) The defendant the platform operator and the distributor also insisted that they did not constitute infringement.
Judgment
The judge made it clear that the voice of a natural person is distinguished by its acoustic pattern, timbre, and frequency, that it is characterized by uniqueness, singularity, and stability, and that it is capable of giving others the ability to form or causing the general public to produce, thoughts or emotional activities related to that natural person, and can demonstrate to the outside world an individual’s behavior and identity. The recognizability of the voice of a natural person means that on the basis of repeated or long-term listening by others, a specific natural person can be identified through the voice characteristics. As an individual’s personality rights and interests, voice has a unique personal exclusivity, and the voice of any natural person shall be strictly protected by law.
A voice synthesized using artificial intelligence may be recognizable if it enables the general public or the public in the relevant field to associate it with the natural person based on its timbre, intonation, and style of pronunciation. Furthermore, authorization of sound recordings is not equivalent to authorization of the sound itself. Therefore, any unauthorized use or authorization of another person to use the sound in a sound recording constitutes an infringement.
Significance
With the rapid development of AI technology and the continuous expansion of application fields, the related legal issues and ethical challenges are becoming more and more prominent. The “AI sound infringement case” judgment undoubtedly sets a crucial legal benchmark for the industry and provides solid legal support to protect sound rights and interests. At the same time, this case also reminds relevant enterprises and individuals that when using AI technology for product development and application, they must fully respect and protect the intellectual property rights and personality rights of others and avoid legal risks arising from infringement. Furthermore, the healthy development of the AI industry can only be promoted if enterprises or individuals apply AI technology in a legal and compliant manner.