Voice Actors Sue AI Company for Unauthorized Use of Their Voices

Two voice actors have filed a class-action lawsuit against an artificial intelligence startup, alleging that the company illegally copied their voices and used them without permission in its voiceover technology. The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in New York, claims that the company misled the actors into providing voice samples under false pretenses, ultimately profiting from AI-generated versions of their voices.

The plaintiffs, who have worked as voice actors for years, were approached through a freelance platform to provide voice samples for what they were told were benign projects. One actor was informed that his recordings would be used solely for academic research, while the other was told her voice would be used for internal test scripts. However, years later, both discovered their voices being used in various media, including YouTube videos and podcasts, without their consent or compensation.

This case is part of a broader trend in which creative professionals are increasingly challenging tech companies over the unauthorized use of their work. As artificial intelligence technology advances, concerns have grown about how these systems are trained, often requiring vast amounts of data that may include copyrighted material. The lawsuit highlights the tension between innovation in AI and the rights of individuals whose voices and likenesses are being used to fuel these technologies.

The actors are seeking at least $5 million in damages and a court order to prevent the company from continuing to use their voices. They argue that the company’s actions constitute fraud, false advertising, and a violation of their publicity rights. Their attorney emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of all individuals whose voices may have been misappropriated, stating, “We want to make sure this doesn't happen to other people.”

The lawsuit also points to the company’s practice of marketing AI-generated voices under pseudonyms, which the plaintiffs argue is misleading. The company has been known to offer celebrity soundalike voices, raising further questions about the ethical implications of its business model. Critics argue that such practices not only undermine the livelihoods of voice actors but also blur the lines of intellectual property rights.

Historically, the rise of digital technology has often led to legal battles over copyright and intellectual property. The music industry, for example, faced similar challenges with the advent of file-sharing platforms in the early 2000s, leading to significant legal reforms. As AI technology continues to evolve, the legal landscape surrounding voice and likeness rights is likely to undergo further scrutiny and potential reform.

The plaintiffs’ concerns reflect a growing unease among creative professionals about the future of their work in an age of AI. Many fear that the proliferation of AI-generated content could lead to a significant reduction in job opportunities, as machines increasingly replicate human voices and performances. One actor expressed his frustration, stating, “My voice is literally saying things I wouldn’t say with brands I wouldn’t work with in places I wouldn’t want to be placed.”

As the lawsuit unfolds, it may set a precedent for how voice and likeness rights are treated in the context of AI technology. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the entertainment industry and beyond, as more individuals seek to protect their creative contributions in an increasingly automated world. The case underscores the urgent need for clear legal frameworks that address the complexities of AI and intellectual property rights, ensuring that creators are compensated and their rights are respected in the digital age.