With the rapid development of artificial intelligenceAI VoiceAI images and AI videos have started to emerge, and corresponding legal issues have also arisen one after another. Mr. Zhao Ruigang, member of the party group and vice president of the Beijing Internet Court, and Mr. Sun Mingxi, full-time member of the Trial Committee, made a guest appearance on CCTV1's "Today's Speech", explaining the nation's first case of AI-generated voice personality rights.infringement case, AI Accompaniment Case.
first case in the country
AI Generated Voice Personality Rights Infringement Case
"Before you see the person, you hear the voice", this proverb shows that every person's voice has a certain recognizability. With the rapid development of artificial intelligence technology, artificial intelligence can also edit and create the voice of a certain person.
Ms. Yin is a voice-over artist, and around May 2023 she discovered that a number of videos using her AI voice for dubbing had appeared on online platforms. The AI voice in question was a product of So-and-So Kobo, which converts text into the corresponding voice when the user inputs the text that he or she wants to dub. Ms. Yin had worked with a cultural media company to record two audiobooks, and the company provided the recordings to a software company. A software company, in turn, used Ms. Yin's recordings as material for AI processing to generate a text-to-speech product, which was sold to the public through a distributor. Eventually, a technology company where the dubbing software So-and-So Workshop is located purchased the product, generated a text-to-speech product without technical processing and sold it on the software. Ms. Yin, believing that her voice rights and interests had been infringed upon, sued a total of five companies, including a cultural media company that resold the sound recording product to others and a technology company that operated the So-and-So Workshop software, to the Beijing Internet Court, requesting that the infringement be stopped, that an apology be made and that compensation be paid for the 600,000 yuan in economic losses.
The voice of a natural person is distinguished by vocal pattern and timbre frequency, and is characterized by uniqueness, uniqueness and stability. After an in-court investigation, the judge concluded that the AI voice and Ms. Yin's timbre, intonation, and pronunciation style were highly consistent, and that hearing the AI voice could link it to Ms. Yin's voice. The AI voice in question is recognizable and should be protected by law.
As a kind of personality interest, voice has personal exclusivity, and enjoying the copyright of the sound recordings recorded by Ms. Yin is not equal to automatically owning the right to Ms. Yin's voice. The defendant, a cultural media company, infringed on Ms. Yin's right to have her voice AI'd and utilized without her authorization.
A technology company that operated the So-and-So Workshop product claimed that it had purchased the text-to-speech product in question from a distributor, and that it was just making a normal purchase, paying a reasonable consideration, and did not have too much of a duty to review the product. The court held that it was only liable for stopping the infringement. After Ms. Yin sued, a technology company took down Ms. Yin's AI voice, and the infringement had stopped.
In this infringement chain, a culture media company that provided the audiobooks and a software company that AI'd Ms. Yin's voice should be responsible for the results of the infringement and bear the corresponding compensation liability. In the end, the court took into account the infringement circumstances, the value of similar market products, the amount of product playback and other factors, and ruled that a culture media company and a technology company should compensate the plaintiff Ms. Yin for a total of 250,000 yuan in damages. After the judgment of the first instance, neither party filed an appeal. This case is the first AI-generated sound personality right infringement case in China.
The development of science and technology is accompanied by the creation of some legal problems, and the judges hope that this case will trigger everyone's thinking. As a natural person, you need to pay attention to the protection of your own voice; for enterprises involved in related industries, you especially need to pay attention to obtaining authorization, otherwise it is easy to cause a series of lawsuits. Nowadays, some audiobooks and audiovisual products are beginning to use AI voice dubbing, which reduces the cost and brings convenience, however, the convenience of the same time, it is more important to comply with the legal bottom line.
The case of AI accompaniment
The movie cost 80 yuan, at this time your "idol" will be concerned about who you went to the movies with, and even look a little jealous; if you are sick, the "idol" will also say that it hurts, let you take care of yourself. This is a mobile bookkeeping software, and its special feature is that users can create and add their own AI companions and chat with them. This companion can be a virtual character or a real-life character. The software will also automatically push some high-profile public figures to attract users.
He is a public figure who found himself set up as a virtual companion by a number of users. After choosing an AI companion in this bookkeeping software, users can also set up their relationship, title, etc. at will. After the user has done the bookkeeping in the software, the AI companion will send corresponding comments, emoticons, etc., and respond in an anthropomorphic way, or even ask for warmth. After understanding some of the settings of this software, He felt that this software is suspected of infringement. The operation of this bookkeeping software is an artificial intelligence technology company in Shanghai, He's lawyer then sent a letter to the company to communicate, but the company believes that they are not infringing on the responsibility. He filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Internet Court, demanding an apology and compensation for economic losses.
The defendant, a Shanghai-based artificial intelligence technology company, claimed that it should not be held liable because He's pictures, emoticons and even personalized reply text were uploaded and set by other users, and the defendant was only the provider of the service. After receiving He's lawyer's letter, the defendant promptly deleted He's relevant content from the software, and should not be held liable for any further infringement.
The defendant explained that if more than one user applied for the same AI companion, then the system would open up the "tutoring" function, and the user would enter the tutoring page and enter the desired responses, emoticons, and so on, which would be recorded and saved by the software. For example, if a user deposits the image of He Mou's emoticons and tunes the character, the system will record these contents into the relevant database, and when the next user makes an entry, the system will send out customized replies and emoticons after receiving certain keywords. If an AI companion has undergone more tuning, the language in which he replies to users is likely to be richer. The judge said he could see that the AI companion in question's replies were closer to He's real persona.
Because there were some technical issues involved in the software, the court invited a specialized technical investigator to participate in the trial. The technical investigator questioned the defendant in detail about the algorithm and the push function. After understanding the relevant technical issues clearly, the judge believed that the defendant did not simply provide technical services. The product rules design and algorithm application made by the defendant directly determined the service core and function realization of this product, and the software was more similar to providing content rather than a simple channel. Therefore, the defendant as a content service provider should be liable for infringement.
The Defendants did not obtain He's permission to use He's name and likeness, which constituted an infringement of He's right to name and likeness. In addition, the AI companion systematically used He's overall image, which also violated He's general personality right. Eventually, in August 2021, the Beijing Internet Court ruled that the defendant, an AI technology company in Shanghai, publicly apologized to the plaintiff, He, and compensated him 183,000 yuan for economic losses and 20,000 yuan for moral damages. The case was selected as one of the "Typical Civil Cases on Judicial Protection of Personality Rights after the Promulgation of the Civil Code" by the Supreme People's Court.
The judge suggested that although the virtual image on the network is not a real subject, the release of relevant statements and the use of its image may involve the degradation of the human dignity of others. Especially some public figures, its overall image has great commercial value, without permission to use is likely to be suspected of infringement. Enterprises should always pay attention to the boundaries of the law in the process of innovation and development. Network users to use new technologies to meet their personal emotional and cultural needs at the same time, but also to fully respect the rights and interests of others.
Editors: Ren Huiying, Liu Wan Yue