Opinion: Clauses in Netflix's new voice actor contract unlawful
Law firm commissioned by voice actors' association considers central clauses of new contract, which Netflix presents to voice actors, to be invalid or unlawful.
German voice actors with pictures of their roles.
(Image: VDS)
Netflix' current contract for all German-speaking voice actors is apparently not legally valid in its current form. This is according to a legal opinion commissioned by the German voice actors' association VDS. The opinion follows the resistance from voice actors that the so-called AOR agreement (Assignment of Rights Agreement) triggered.
According to the opinion from the law firm Spirit Legal, central clauses of the contract are invalid or unlawful. Further clauses would manifest the power imbalance between Netflix and the voice actors. As a result, the voice actors are explicitly advised against signing in the opinion. Should the VDS members follow this advice, first Netflix original productions could appear without German audio in the foreseeable future.
What is it about?
According to VDS, Netflix demands in the AOR agreement that voice actors grant the company far-reaching rights to their voice recordings – including use for AI training, digital processing and replication, and the creation of synthetic voices. The contract, which heise online has access to, also states: “In order for Netflix to work with powerful AI systems, technically optimize them, ensure and improve their quality, and continue to use these systems for its purposes, the voice actor grants the studio the necessary consents for this purpose, to the extent required, for this exploitation or use of the work results.”
Netflix is granted the rights “for a period of at least 50 years” – without paying any additional remuneration for it. Those who do not sign are threatened by Netflix, according to VDS, with the discontinuation of German-dubbed versions in favor of mere subtitles.
Videos by heise
What does the legal opinion criticize?
The legal opinion identifies three central problem areas. For example, the contractual clause for AI training does not define a clearly defined type of use and is therefore copyright-infringing and invalid. According to Spirit Legal, the supposed consent reservations for voice clones and digital processing offer little protection in practice because a general clause undermines the reservations. Furthermore, the intended consent to data processing does not meet the requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). For example, voice actors can only sign everything or reject everything, and according to the current state of technology, voice data once fed into an AI system cannot be completely deleted. In the opinion of the lawyers, the right of withdrawal provided for in the GDPR thus effectively becomes meaningless.
Furthermore, according to the legal opinion, several clauses of the new agreement do not withstand a review of the general terms and conditions (AGB). These include the waiver of legally indispensable information rights, the exclusion of interim legal protection, and the undifferentiated lump-sum remuneration. Finally, an arbitration clause transfers legal enforcement to a confidential procedure without public access and without any signaling effect for other affected parties.
What does this mean for voice actors?
The invalidity of individual clauses does not take effect automatically. Anyone who signs the new agreement would therefore have to individually litigate the invalidity of each clause later – in court, at their expense, against one of the financially strongest media groups in the world. There is currently no specific case law on AI clauses in contracts for dubbing services. The legal path to challenge the clauses would therefore be arduous. (nij)
