Hustisya · AI voice rightsTokyo Court Protects Voices—but Leaves Tsuda’s AI-Cloning Claim UndecidedIsinulat Setyembre 30, 2026 nang 11:07 PM UTCManoodTranskripsyon0:09A Tokyo court has recognized a performer's voice as protected by publicity rights.0:13That gives performers a legal basis to protect a sound that attracts audiences and0:17generates income.0:18But actor Kenjiro Suda's case produced neither a finding that the disputed videos0:22infringed his rights nor a court-ordered takedown.0:25What does that protection cover when the disputed videos disappeared before the0:28court ruled?0:29A voice can carry personal identity just as a likeness does.0:32Presiding Judge Aya Takahashi recognized that connection in the Tokyo District0:36Court's September 30th, 2026 decision.0:39The protection extends beyond what a performer looks like to the sound that can draw0:42customers and promote sales.0:43But the commercial condition is crucial.0:45Unauthorized use can infringe publicity rights when it is exclusively directed0:49toward exploiting the voice's customer attracting power.0:52Recognition of a protected voice is not the same thing as proving an unlawful use.0:57That exclusive purpose requirement leaves real boundaries unresolved.1:01The decision is not a blanket prohibition on every unauthorized imitation, every1:05synthetic voice, or every use of artificial intelligence.1:09It does not settle how the rule applies to parody, commentary, or other particular1:13uses.1:14The complete judgment is unavailable for independent examination, limiting what can1:18be established about the full reasoning.1:20Suda's voice is part of the work audiences know him for.1:23He plays Kento Nanami in Jujutsu Kaisen and Hyakunosuke Ogata in Golden Kamui, and1:29his credits include Yu-Gi-Oh!1:30His distinctive baritone helps explain the commercial stake, and imitation can1:34attach a recognizable performer's sound to content he never authorized.1:38The material at issue has not been established by the court as criminally obscene.1:42Suda's complaint concerned 188 videos on an anonymous TikTok account.1:47The alleged imitation was an AI-generated voice that could only be his, but that1:52identification remains an allegation, not a technical finding.1:55No verified account identifies the uploader, the AI tool, the training material, or2:00the method used to produce the audio.2:02The posting window was July 2024 through September 2025.2:06An earlier description counted at least 188 videos from July 2024 until filing.2:12Neither establishes the exact lawsuit filing date.2:15The upload period must not be mistaken for it.2:17The court left infringement by these particular videos undecided.2:21A claim that the copied voice was judicially found to violate SUTA's rights goes2:25beyond the established outcome.2:26The account operator deleted the videos after the lawsuit was filed, and the account2:30itself was removed too.2:31That left nothing for the requested deletion order to remove.2:34The court dismissed the demand against TikTok's operating company because the2:38material was already gone, not because it rejected protection for voices.2:42The removal achieved the lawsuit's original practical objective.2:46No damages demand or award or a separate prospective injunction has been2:50established.2:51The account's historical audience estimate exceeds 200,000 subscribers.2:55That figure has not been independently corroborated, and it is not the audience of2:59an account still operating after deletion.3:01Audience size helps explain the alleged commercial stakes, but it does not prove3:05liability.3:06The upper monthly earnings estimate is 750,000 yen, not 75,000 yen.3:12The correct range is 500,000 to 750,000 yen a month.3:16In the Japanese notation, 50 units of 10,000 means 500,000 and 75 means3:22750,000.3:23The mistaken upper figure was 10 times too small.3:26Reversing the descending range would not fix it.3:28These earnings remain an allegation.3:31The estimate was based on information the uploader published on another website, not3:35independently verified payments, audited financial records, or a judicial income3:40finding.3:41Multiplying it across the posting period would not establish proven total revenue.3:45The Japan Actors Union supports Tsuda's action and thanks him for his courage.3:49Its organizational statement also acknowledges the emotional strain of the3:53proceedings.3:54The decision has been described as Japan's first expressed judicial recognition of3:57voice publicity rights protection.3:59That recognition supplies a legal basis, but whether another disputed use satisfies4:04the exclusive commercial exploitation test still requires a separate determination.4:08This case did not make that determination for the removed videos, no appeal plan or4:13case number has been established.4:14The union intends to review the full formal judgment and comment afterward, but no4:18publication date has been announced.Basahin ang artikuloTakbo ng kuwento sa panahonHeyDexAng maikling video ↗
