Copyright Implications Of AI Voice Synthesis In EntertAInment And Advertising
1. Introduction
AI voice synthesis allows the generation of realistic human-like voices from text input. In entertainment and advertising, it is used to:
Create virtual narrators for films or documentaries.
Reproduce celebrity voices for endorsements or animations.
Localize content in multiple languages without hiring voice actors.
Legal issues arise because AI-generated voices can:
Mimic real human voices, including copyrighted or commercially protected voices.
Reproduce speech from copyrighted scripts, audiobooks, or performances.
Create derivative works, raising questions of authorship and infringement.
2. Key Copyright and Related Issues
Authorship and Ownership
Copyright law generally requires human authorship. Purely AI-generated voices may not be protectable.
Right of Publicity / Performance Rights
Using a recognizable voice may violate a performer’s publicity or performance rights, even if the script is original.
Derivative Works / Infringement
AI voice synthesis can reproduce copyrighted performances or mimic voices from audiobooks or films, creating derivative works.
Transformative Use / Fair Use
If the synthesized voice is sufficiently altered for commentary, parody, or education, it may be defensible.
3. Relevant Case Laws
Case 1: Naruto v. Slater (2018)
Facts: A monkey took a selfie with a photographer’s camera and claimed copyright.
Holding: Non-human authors cannot hold copyright.
Relevance: Pure AI-generated voices cannot claim copyright; ownership rests with the human operator or developer.
Case 2: Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents (2023)
Facts: AI “DABUS” claimed copyright/patent for a creative invention.
Holding: Courts rejected AI authorship claims.
Implication: Voice synthesized entirely by AI in advertising or entertainment cannot independently hold copyright; the human programmer or content creator is the author.
Case 3: Midler v. Ford Motor Co. (1988)
Facts: Ford used a sound-alike to imitate singer Bette Midler’s voice in an advertisement.
Holding: The court ruled this violated Midler’s right of publicity.
Implication: Using AI to synthesize a recognizable celebrity voice for ads without permission can result in liability, even if no original recording was copied.
Case 4: White v. Samsung Electronics (1992)
Facts: Samsung used a robot resembling Vanna White to promote a product.
Holding: Court recognized right of publicity violations for appropriation of persona.
Relevance: AI voice synthesis that mimics distinctive speech or tone may similarly violate rights of publicity in advertising contexts.
Case 5: Authors Guild v. Google (2015)
Facts: Google scanned books to provide snippets. Authors claimed copyright infringement.
Holding: Transformative use can qualify as fair use.
Implication: AI voice synthesis for parody, critique, or educational entertainment may invoke fair use, but commercial advertising is less likely to qualify.
Case 6: Midler & Licensing Precedents vs. AI Synthesis
Facts: Several entertainment cases have ruled that imitating a celebrity voice or style without permission infringes contractual, copyright, or publicity rights.
Relevance: AI-generated voices that imitate copyrighted performances (movies, audiobooks) may create derivative works, requiring licensing.
Case 7: Warner Bros. v. ABC (1980)
Facts: ABC parodied Warner Bros. cartoon characters.
Holding: Parody may be fair use if transformative.
Relevance: AI-synthesized voices may qualify for fair use if used for parody or commentary, but commercial advertising without permission usually does not qualify.
Case 8: Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (2008)
Facts: Universal issued takedowns for YouTube videos using copyrighted songs.
Holding: Courts emphasized considering fair use before removal.
Implication: AI-generated voices reproducing copyrighted recordings must be assessed for fair use before automated enforcement actions in entertainment platforms.
4. Practical Implications for Entertainment and Advertising
Celebrity Voice Cloning
Requires permission or licensing to avoid right-of-publicity claims.
AI-Generated Original Voices
Can be copyrighted by the human creator if the creative input is substantial, even if the voice is synthesized.
Derivative Works
Avoid directly reproducing copyrighted performances (e.g., audiobook readings or movie dialogues) without licensing.
Fair Use / Transformative Application
Non-commercial, educational, or parodic uses of AI voice synthesis may qualify as fair use.
Contractual Considerations
Voice actors’ contracts may cover AI reproductions; ensure legal clearance when generating AI voices from recorded material.
5. Conclusion
AI voice synthesis in entertainment and advertising raises a mix of copyright, publicity, and licensing issues:
Pure AI-generated voices cannot hold copyright, but human creators can claim authorship if they provide creative control.
Using celebrity or distinctive voices without permission violates right of publicity.
Transformative uses, parody, and educational applications may invoke fair use, but commercial advertising is high-risk.
Licensing and ethical consent are critical to avoid litigation.
RELATED Blog
comments