Aller au contenu

Cookies de mesure d’audience

Nous utilisons Google Analytics et Google Tag Manager pour compter les visites et voir quelles pages sont utiles. Si vous acceptez, Google Analytics peut déposer des cookies pour reconnaître vos visites suivantes. Si vous refusez, il ne dépose aucun cookie, mais Google reçoit tout de même un signal sans cookie pour chaque page que vous consultez. Nous n’envoyons pas à Google votre nom, votre adresse e-mail ni les informations de votre inscription, et vous pouvez modifier votre choix à tout moment via « Paramètres des cookies » en bas de la page. Confidentialité

Cette traduction de l'interface est un brouillon qui n'a pas été relu par une personne de langue maternelle. L'anglais est la version source. English

Tokyo court recognizes voice as publicity right in AI voice-clone case against TikTok

30 sept. 2026 · Collecté automatiquement à partir de sources publiques. Non vérifié par une personne.

Ce contenu n'est disponible que dans sa langue d'origine (anglais).

What happened

On Sept. 30, 2026, the Tokyo District Court ruled that a person's voice can be protected as a publicity right in Japan, in the first ruling of its kind in the country. Presiding Judge Aya Takahashi held that "the unauthorised use of a performer's voice can be considered an infringement of publicity rights" when the purpose is exclusively to take advantage of its commercial appeal, saying the human voice "symbolizes an individual's character" like a portrait.

The case

Actor and voice artist Kenjiro Tsuda (Jujutsu Kaisen, Yu-Gi-Oh!) sued TikTok in November 2025 over at least 188 videos posted by an anonymous account between July 2024 and September 2025 that used AI-generated narration imitating his distinctive baritone. Tsuda's lawyers estimated the account, which attracted more than 200,000 followers, could have generated roughly ¥500,000–¥750,000 per month through view-based creator payouts. TikTok argued the videos used a generic male voice and that any resemblance was subjective; the account holder claimed the voice model was trained on a friend's voice.

What the ruling did and did not do

The court dismissed Tsuda's demand that the videos be removed, because the account had already been closed. No damages or removal order issued; the ruling's significance is the legal recognition itself. Tsuda's lawyer told reporters he would not appeal. These are the reported facts of the ruling; nothing about the underlying copyright treatment of AI-generated voice clones in Japan has been decided beyond this case.

Sources