A.I. and Voice Actors

Paul Skye Lehrman makes his living as a voice actor, but to his surprise he found his own voice being used in a podcast through AI generation by Lovo, Inc. Lehrman is suing Lovo relying on trademark protections to protect his voice's use and livelihood.

Attribution

Lighting Equipment by Pixabay CC0 on Pexels

With the rise of Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) use among everyday internet users, those same users have debated over the usage of others likeness, creative works and voice. Famously, A.I. companies have created presidential deepfakes impersonating presidential candidates. Actress Scarlett Johansen is also currently suing to remove a chatbot resembling her voice. Typically, debate over an A.I. company’s use of a person’s likeness has centered around celebrities, politicians or those who have felt the use portrays them in a negative light. Right of publicity laws are designed to protect a person's right over their own image and likeness. These laws have traditionally been used to protect celebrities, but with the rise of the internet there are many more people who have a stake in protecting their image. However, what happens when an A.I. company effectively removes the ability for a voice actor to work?

In April 2022, Paul Skye Lehrman was watching a YouTube video on military equipment being used in the Russian-Ukrainian war. Lehrman then heard something unexpected, his own voice. Lehrman, a voice actor, had not done work that would lead his voice to be in this video and was alarmed by the fact he had never recorded the words in the video. After initial concerns, Lehrman tracked the usage of his voice to a recording that he had submitted to Fiverr.com, but this recording was being used by Lovo. Lehrman told BBC in an interview that Fiverr stated to him that, “the scripts will not be used for anything else.”

Lehrman filed a class action suit on May 16th, 2024 against Lovo for creating a commercial text to speech product that used his voice without his permission. Part of Lovo filed a motion to dismiss this complaint citing the one-year statute of limitation for Sections 50 and 51 of New York Civil Rights Law. Part of Lehrman’s complaint covers his right to publicity as a voice actor. This right would protect Lehrman and his brand against the improper use of his voice without his explicit permission. Lovo states the New York law that Lehrman raised as an issue only covers “actual voices” and not a “clone.” Lehrman and other parties amended their complaint to cover a consumer class that may have been unaware that the Lovo service they were using was illegal. As of October 17th, 2024, the most recent filing in the case was a motion for extension of time by Lovo, which was granted by the Southern District of New York.

Voice actors and creators like Lehrman should be following this case very closely because the implications are enormous. Right of publicity statutes are being raised by creators as a protection from A.I. This is a modern legal problem where technology is being created faster than the laws that govern it. There has been a push from members of the national legislature and state legislatures to lift the load from courts and create statutes surrounding A.I. usage. The Biden administration has released an A.I. Bill of Rights, but will this solve the issue that Lehrman has brought to the court? There are questions of how to protect creators while allowing a new industry to expand and not interfering with the free market.

While there is not any one point legislation in New York to help govern Lovo’s usage of Lehrman's voice, there is proposed legislation that addresses A.I. chatbots. The national and many state legislatures have been debating the reach of A.I. and what should be addressed. Yet, the gaps in statutes, and the speed in which A.I. is improving and expanding will mean that the courts will take a large burden of the A.I. question. Courts will have to consider whether a voice actor whose business is based on the property of their voice outweighs the arguments of companies like Lovo, that argue clones of voices are different from original voices. Beyond voice actors, any artist that requires their likeness to perform their business will be affected by decisions in cases like Lehrman's. Due to the relative recency of A.I. creation, each court case will have a drastic impact on the use and litigation of A.I. The court's decision regarding Lovo’s use of Lehrman’s voice will have broad implications on how the legal community understands the right of publicity in the ever-evolving landscape of A.I.