Copyright OwnershIP Of UkrAInian Synthetic Voice And Emotion Recreation Technologies
1. Legal Framework Relevant to Synthetic Voice Technologies
Under the Law of Ukraine on Copyright and Related Rights, copyright protection applies to:
literary works
musical works
audiovisual works
performances and sound recordings
Synthetic voice technologies intersect with copyright and neighbouring (related) rights, especially performer’s rights, because voices often belong to actors, singers, or narrators.
Key legal questions include:
Who is the author when AI recreates a voice?
Do voice performers retain rights over synthetic reproductions?
Does the developer of the AI system hold copyright?
Can AI-generated voice output itself be copyrighted?
Most jurisdictions (including Ukraine and the EU) require human creativity for copyright ownership.
2. Major Legal Principles from Case Law
Even though there are few cases directly about AI voice cloning, several landmark decisions establish principles applicable to synthetic voice technologies.
Case 1: Naruto v. Slater (2018)
Facts
A macaque monkey took photographs using a photographer’s camera. The photographs were published commercially.
Legal Issue
Could a non-human entity hold copyright in the photos?
Decision
The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that copyright law protects only human authors.
Relevance to Synthetic Voice Technology
This case established the human authorship rule, which strongly influences AI copyright law worldwide.
For synthetic voice systems:
If AI autonomously generates speech or emotional performances, no copyright exists in the output itself.
Copyright arises only if a human exercises creative control, such as writing scripts or directing the performance.
Thus, a Ukrainian AI-generated audiobook narrated entirely by software without human creative input may not receive copyright protection.
Case 2: Thaler v. U.S. Copyright Office (2022)
Facts
Computer scientist Stephen Thaler attempted to register a work titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” as a fully AI-generated artwork.
Decision
The court confirmed the U.S. Copyright Office’s refusal, emphasizing that copyright requires human authorship.
Relevance to Voice-Cloning Systems
In synthetic voice technology:
If a neural system automatically generates emotional speech performances
and no human author controls expressive aspects
then copyright protection is unlikely.
However, if a human:
writes scripts
directs emotional tone
edits voice outputs
then that human can claim authorship.
Case 3: Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (1991)
Facts
A telephone directory was claimed as copyrighted.
Decision
The Supreme Court held that copyright requires originality and creative expression, not merely effort or compilation.
Application to Synthetic Voice
Voice-generation systems often:
combine phonetic datasets
synthesize speech patterns
reproduce emotional cues
If the output is purely mechanical reproduction, it lacks originality.
But if a human:
creatively edits voice pacing
selects emotional tones
structures expressive narration
then the final output can meet the originality requirement.
Case 4: Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening (2009)
Facts
A company used automated systems to extract small parts of newspaper articles.
Decision
The European Court of Justice ruled that copyright protection exists when a work reflects the author’s own intellectual creation.
Relevance to Ukrainian Voice Technology
Ukraine’s copyright regime is influenced by European legal standards.
For synthetic voices:
copyright arises when human intellectual creation shapes the expression
automated extraction or reproduction alone does not qualify.
Therefore, AI-generated emotional narration must involve human creative decision-making.
Case 5: SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Ltd. (2013)
Facts
The dispute concerned whether software functionality could be copyrighted.
Decision
The court held that ideas, functionality, and programming logic are not protected, only creative expression is.
Application to AI Voice Systems
In synthetic voice technology:
algorithms for emotion synthesis are functional processes
they are usually protected by patent or trade secret law, not copyright.
However:
voice recordings
scripts
expressive narration
can be copyrighted.
Case 6: Midler v. Ford Motor Co. (1988)
Facts
A singer’s voice was imitated in a commercial without her consent.
Decision
The court ruled that a distinctive voice can be legally protected, even if the actual recording was not used.
Importance for Synthetic Voice
This case is highly relevant for voice cloning.
If a Ukrainian AI system recreates the voice of a famous actor or singer:
it may violate personality rights or performer’s rights
even if the audio is synthetically generated.
Thus, voice cloning may require permission from the original performer.
Case 7: Anderson v. Stallone (1989)
Facts
A writer created a script using characters from the Rocky franchise.
Decision
The court ruled the script was an unauthorized derivative work.
Relevance to AI Voice Recreation
If a synthetic voice system recreates:
a character voice
a famous narrator style
the resulting output may be considered a derivative work, requiring authorization from the rights holder.
3. Ownership Possibilities in Synthetic Voice Systems
Ownership can vary depending on the creative contribution.
1. Human creator (most common)
If a human:
writes dialogue
controls emotional expression
edits synthetic audio
they may hold copyright in the final audio performance.
2. Voice performer
If a synthetic system is trained using a performer’s voice recordings, the performer may claim:
neighbouring rights
personality rights
depending on how the voice is used.
3. AI developer
Developers usually own:
software code
machine learning models
system architecture
but not necessarily the generated audio content.
4. No copyright
If a system autonomously generates voice content without human creative control:
the output may not be protected by copyright.
4. Key Legal Issues Specific to Ukraine
In Ukrainian law, synthetic voice technologies raise several concerns:
Performer’s Rights
Actors and singers may have rights over reproductions of their performances.
Moral Rights
Authors retain rights to:
attribution
integrity of their works
even when AI systems modify voice recordings.
AI Regulation
Ukraine currently relies on traditional copyright rules, meaning human creativity remains essential for ownership.
5. Summary
Copyright ownership of Ukrainian synthetic voice and emotion recreation technologies depends on human creativity and performer rights.
Important legal conclusions include:
AI cannot be an author (Naruto v. Slater; Thaler case).
Originality is required for copyright protection (Feist case).
Human intellectual creation must shape expression (Infopaq case).
Algorithms themselves are not protected as creative works (SAS Institute case).
Voices may be legally protected identities (Midler v. Ford).
AI-generated imitations may become derivative works (Anderson v. Stallone).
Therefore, in Ukraine the likely copyright owners in synthetic voice technologies are:
human creators directing the system
performers whose voices are used
software developers (for the underlying technology).
✅ Conclusion
Synthetic voice and emotional recreation technologies challenge traditional copyright systems, but existing legal principles—human authorship, originality, and performer protection—still guide courts. As AI voice cloning expands in fields such as audiobooks, film dubbing, digital assistants, and entertainment, legal systems including Ukraine’s will likely develop more specific regulations governing voice ownership and AI-generated performances.
RELATED Blog
comments