What is the warning significance of the first AI-generated voice personality rights infringement case?
According to a report from the Workers' Daily on May 16, the Beijing Internet Court recently held a first-instance hearing and pronounced the country's first AI-generated voice infringement case on personality rights. Several companies used and sold AI-enabled dubbing artist voices. The court ruled that several defendant companies constituted an infringement of the plaintiff’s voice rights and were required to pay a total of 250,000 yuan in damages.
When interpreting the law, the judge stated that voice, as a kind of personal rights and interests, has personal exclusiveness, and the voice of any natural person should be protected by law. Through the trial of this case, the court delineated the application boundaries for new business formats and new technologies, and clarified the judicial attitude of protecting personal rights and interests while guiding technology for good.
With the rapid development of the Internet and artificial intelligence technology, great changes have taken place in the recording, utilization and dissemination of sounds. The connection between sound and personality has become closer, and the use value of sound has become more and more prominent. The civil code of our country includes personality rights as an independent part. For the first time, the protection of voice is written into the civil code in the form of legislation, and the voice of natural persons is protected with clear reference to the application of portrait rights. With the widespread application of AI speech synthesis technology, it is becoming more and more common for sounds to be collected, synthesized, produced, imitated and even tampered with, which poses unprecedented challenges to the protection of sound rights and interests.
Does AI-generated voice fall within the scope of personality rights protection? How to judge whether voice rights have been infringed? Regarding these new issues encountered in judicial practice, the judgment results of the above cases have clarified that the scope of protection of natural persons’ voice rights and interests can extend to AI-generated voices on the premise of being identifiable, and clarified the adjudication rules for AI-generated voice infringement disputes. , clarified the legal boundaries of relevant technology applications and provided a judicial reference for handling such disputes in the future.
Currently, AI technology is widely used in various fields, and generative AI has also produced new forms of personality rights infringement. In addition to AI-generated voices, AI face-changing, AI-generated false pictures, audio and video, etc., which have received widespread attention in recent years, can not only confuse the fake with the real, but can also create something out of thin air, thereby infringing on other people's privacy, reputation and other personal rights and interests. On the eve of Qingming Festival this year, the phenomenon of AI technology "cloning" the image and voice of the deceased and "resurrecting" it triggered a discussion on "whether it infringes on the personality interests of the deceased." The legal risks hidden under the technological trend have gradually aroused widespread concern in society, and legal responses are urgently needed.
It should be noted that in recent years, there have been judicial practices in various places to clarify the adjudication rules in infringement cases involving new technologies and new applications, and to conduct useful exploration of the protection of natural persons’ personality rights and interests presented in virtualization. Previously, the Supreme People's Court issued a case of infringement of personality rights by "AI companion" software. The court determined that artificial intelligence software’s unauthorized use of natural person images to create virtual characters constitutes infringement. This case clarifies the personality rights of natural persons and their virtual images, which is of great significance to strengthening the protection of personality rights in the era of artificial intelligence.
It is worth mentioning that in the trial of the moral rights infringement case of AI-generated voices, the court focused on balancing the interests of all parties and taking into account technological development and reasonable demands of the industry on the basis of protecting the rights and interests of natural persons’ voices. Faced with the challenges brought about by technological iterations, the courts continue to explore and promote the legalization of cyberspace governance, keep pace with the times and face the characteristics of new cases of infringement of personal rights, and set benchmarks, clarify rules, and draw bottom lines for the development of new technologies and new business formats.
In an era when virtual applications have generally entered life scenes, the protection of personality rights and interests faces unprecedented challenges. The judgment of the country's first AI-generated voice personality rights infringement case not only once again clearly conveyed the concept that "the Internet is not a place outside the law" and technology applications must have legal boundaries, it also clarified the court's consistent judicial attitude towards protecting personality rights, and also reminded The public must know and protect their personal rights and interests in the online virtual space. It is expected that more and more landmark individual case judgments will demonstrate their universal value and play a greater exemplary role.
![What is the warning significance of the first AI-generated voice personality rights infringement case?](https://a5qu.com/upload/images/4905d254129cdee8c5b74879c6ea6580.webp)
![](https://a5qu.com/s/user/default.webp)