Personal rights: Synchronized voice is protected from AI imitation

A few days ago, the Berlin Regional Court gave an important signal for dealing with AI technologies and personal rights. In its ruling of August 20, it decided that the voice of a voice actor is also protected by general personal rights and therefore may not be imitated by artificial intelligence systems and subsequently used publicly (case reference: II 2 O 202/24). According to the ruling, the unauthorized use of such an AI voice violates this right of the speaker, which can give rise to claims for damages, among other things.

In the case, a renowned German voice actor, known as the "German voice" of Bruce Willis, took legal action against the operator of a YouTube channel. The latter had dubbed two videos with an AI-generated voice that was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's dubbing voice without the voice actor's consent. This was reported by the plaintiff's lawyer, Kai Jüdemann. The clips therefore had right-wing political content and advertised goods in an online store such as "Woke Zero" T-shirts.

After the YouTube operator had issued a cease-and-desist declaration, the plaintiff demanded compensation for the warning costs as well as material damages for the unauthorized use of his voice. According to the lawyer, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and based its decision on several key points: It clarified, for example, that the right of personality protects a person's freedom to decide for themselves how their voice is used by third parties. The judges emphasized that a well-known voice can have considerable economic value, similar to a portrait or a name.

No labeling, no consent

According to the ruling, which is not yet final, the use of the AI-generated voice is a clear infringement of personal rights. The decisive factor was not that it was an exact copy of the original voice. Rather, the similarity was deliberately so strong that some of the audience had to assume that the well-known voice actor had agreed to the content. The court found that the commercial use of the voice was in the foreground to increase the number of clicks on the YouTube channel and thus advertise the web store.

According to the decision, the interference was not justified. The use of the voice was primarily for commercial purposes and was not covered by freedom of art or freedom of expression. Even if the videos had a satirical character, the use of the voice was not aimed at a confrontation with the speaker himself, but at increasing the appeal of the clips. Furthermore, the lack of labeling as an AI-generated voice was a serious issue. This gave the impression that the speaker identified with the political content of the videos. It was also clear that the plaintiff had not consented to the dissemination of his AI-generated voice in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The court based its claim for damages on the concept of a fictitious license fee: anyone who uses another person's personality trait for commercial purposes without permission must be compensated for the economic value they create. The compensation is then set at a level that reasonable contractual partners would have agreed for the use of the voice. Overall, the ruling thus strengthens the rights of voice actors and other celebrities in the digital age.

(dmk)