When generative AI is used to create a voice that sounds like a real person, what should AI creators and companies be watching for?<\/p>\n
On September 30, 2026, the Tokyo District Court (46th Civil Division) addressed that question in a case brought by Kenjiro Tsuda, a voice and screen actor known to anime fans as the voice of Kento Nanami in Jujutsu Kaisen<\/em>, against TikTok Pte. Ltd., the Singapore company that operates TikTok. The court stated that a person’s voice, like their portrait, is a symbol of the individual’s personality, and may in certain circumstances be protected by the right of publicity<\/strong>. Kei Hirano, one of the plaintiff’s lawyers, said it was the first ruling to expressly recognize voice as falling within the right of publicity.<\/p>\n The court did not, however, find that the narration at issue actually infringed Tsuda’s rights. Because the posts and their data were deleted while the case was pending, it dismissed his claim for removal. The ruling does not draw a simple line that “making an AI voice that sounds like someone is illegal.”<\/p>\n Even so, it matters to anyone using AI-generated voices in content, advertising, social media, film, or games. Even if a person’s voice was never used as training data, legal issues can arise when the output evokes that specific individual and is used to exploit their customer appeal.<\/strong><\/p>\n Key takeaway<\/strong><\/p>\n The question is not only “Whose voice was used for training?” It is also: Who does the final output sound like? Does it trade on that person’s customer appeal? How is the voice presented, and how is it monetized?<\/strong><\/p>\n The ruling is best read as opening the door to a broader debate over how the personal and economic value of a voice should be treated in the age of AI.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Table of Contents<\/p>\n<\/span><\/div>\n