When AI speaks, who gets the bill? Protecting the voice in the age of “voice cloning”

Rapid advances in artificial intelligence are constantly presenting new challenges for the law. The latest example: so-called “voice cloning.” What if AI imitates the voice of a well-known actor or voice actor so convincingly that it is almost indistinguishable from the original voice? A ruling by the Berlin Regional Court (Ref.: 2 O 202/24) provides a clear answer to this question and sets an important marker in the still young legal landscape of the AI age.

The right to one's own voice

The voice is more than just a means of communication — it is an essential part of one's personality. In the field of advertising and dubbing, the voice even has its own, sometimes considerable, “market value”. While the law explicitly regulates the protection of images and names, the protection of the voice is based on the general personality right. Such scope of protection can also apply to a mere imitation if a voice is imitated without permission in such a deceptive manner that third parties attribute it to the original person, thereby creating a false identity. Anyone who gains a commercial advantage in this way is unlawfully interfering with the asset allocation of the law (cf. Schwarz FilmR-HdB/Klingner, 6th ed. 2021, chap. 30, para. 1).

A case with a clear message

These very principles were applied in the present case—with the particularity that the imitation was generated by AI: A well-known voice actor sued a YouTuber who used a misleadingly similar, AI-generated voice for two of his own video posts on his channel. In its reasoning, the Berlin Regional Court made it clear that it makes “no difference” whether a voice is imitated by a human impersonator or AI.

The court recognized the use of the AI-generated voice as unauthorized commercial use, since the videos ultimately served to increase click rates and revenues. The defendant's objection that the politically satirical content of the videos meant that their use was covered by artistic freedom did not hold water, if only because the voice itself was not the subject of the satire. In addition, the incident was judged to be a serious infringement because it could give viewers the impression that the voice actor identified with the politically satirical content of the defendant's video posts.

The court ordered the defendant to pay a fictitious license fee. This sum was calculated on the basis of the plaintiff's standard market fees as an advertising voice.

Conclusion

The ruling sends a clear signal to the media and advertising industry. It makes it clear that although technological innovation simplifies “voice cloning,” the fundamental property rights to one's own voice as part of one's personality right remain unaffected. Anyone who uses the voice of a well-known personality, whether real or artificially generated, without consent must expect legal consequences.