Chinese and English archive texts include AI-assisted translations, not independently human-reviewed. Consult the original-language sources alongside them.
According to a judicial information notice, Beijing Internet Court’s first-instance ruling found that an identifiable natural person’s voice rights could extend to the AI voice at issue.
What changed
In this case, the voice actor’s rights extend to an identifiable voice processed through AI.
Do not generalise this case into a finding that every synthetic voice infringes rights. The full judgment remains to be collected. The notice was published during the appeal period, before the first-instance judgment took effect; no later status is inferred here.
Editorial research question
Research question: how does this material connect artistic practice, forms of action and institutional responses?
This is an editorial interpretation or question, separate from factual statements.
Evidence & sources
According to a judicial information notice, Beijing Internet Court’s first-instance ruling found that an identifiable natural person’s voice rights could extend to the AI voice at issue.
SRC-0016Opening account of the ruling date, case facts and court findings
Beijing High People’s Court, Jingfa Wangshi; supplied by Beijing Internet Court and published through The Paper’s government channel · ZH · 2024-04-23
Case
Cite this record
ANTI-AI ARCHIVE. “Beijing Internet Court rules in an AI-generated voice personality-rights case.” evt-0017. Include this page’s URL and your access date when citing.