China’s Supreme People’s Court Sets Landmark Precedent on AI-Generated Voice and Personality Rights

China’s Supreme People’s Court Designates Generative AI Case as Typical

On May 26, 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) published the “Typical cases on the fifth anniversary of the promulgation of the Civil Code” (民法典颁布五周年典型案例). Among these, a notable generative AI case was highlighted where the Beijing Internet Court ruled that an AI-generated voice infringed on a dubbing artist’s personality rights.

While China is not a common law jurisdiction, the SPC’s designation of a case as a “Typical Case” serves a function similar to a precedential ruling in the U.S., guiding lower courts on how to handle similar future cases.

I. Case Overview: Protection of Voice Rights in the AI Era

The plaintiff, Yin XX, is a dubbing artist whose recorded voice was used without authorization in various popular apps. The sound originated from a text-to-speech product on a platform operated by a Beijing intelligent technology company (defendant one). This platform allowed users to convert text into speech by entering text and adjusting parameters.

Yin was originally commissioned by a Beijing cultural media company (defendant two) to record voice material, which the company owned. The cultural media company later provided these recordings to a software company (defendant three), which used the recordings as raw material to produce AI-generated voices. These AI voices were then sold on a cloud service platform managed by a Shanghai network technology company (defendant four).

Defendant one integrated the text-to-speech product via an API into its platform, offering the generated AI voices without further technical modification. Yin filed suit, demanding that defendant one and defendant three immediately cease infringement, issue an apology, and that all five defendants compensate him for economic and emotional damages.

II. Court’s Decision

The court affirmed that voice rights are personal rights tied to an individual’s dignity. If the AI-generated voice retains identifiable characteristics such as timbre, intonation, and pronunciation style recognizable by the public as belonging to a specific person, the voice rights extend to the AI voice.

The court found all five defendants used Yin’s voice without his consent, constituting infringement. Since the infringing products were already removed, the court did not order a further injunction but required:

• Defendant one (Beijing intelligent technology company) and defendant three (software company) to issue an apology.
• Defendant two (cultural media company) and defendant three to compensate Yin for losses.

III. Significance of the Case

General Secretary Xi Jinping has stressed the need to research and manage risks related to artificial intelligence, ensuring AI is safe, reliable, and controllable. As AI technologies advance, misuse such as voice forgery is increasing, leading to more disputes about personality rights.

China has codified protection of voice rights in the Civil Code’s Personality Rights section, reflecting respect for individuals' voice interests and responding to technological and social developments. This case clarifies that unauthorized use of a person’s voice, including AI-generated versions, infringes on personal rights.

This ruling sets clear boundaries for using AI-generated content based on real individuals’ voices, guiding lawful and ethical development and application of AI technologies.

IV. Relevant Civil Code Provisions

• Article 1018: A natural person has the right to their likeness, which includes images or other media that identify them. They may control the use and publication of their likeness.
• Article 1019: No one may infringe on another’s likeness rights by defaming, falsifying, or using their image without consent. This includes use through information technology methods.
• Article 1023: Provisions protecting the use of a person's name or likeness apply similarly to the protection of a natural person’s voice.

The original text of these cases, including five other Civil Code Typical Cases, is available in Chinese.

For legal professionals interested in AI-related rights and protections, understanding how courts are addressing AI-generated content will be crucial. This case exemplifies how emerging technology and personal rights intersect under Chinese law.