The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has introduced both opportunities and challenges for creative industries. A recent legal confrontation highlights these issues as professional voice actors file a class action against an AI startup accused of exploiting their work to create voice clones for commercial use, raising questions about intellectual property rights, contracts, and consumer protection.
Dispute Over Voice Clones
Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage, established voice actors, have filed a putative class action against Lovo Inc., an AI voice-over software company. In 2019 and 2020, Lehrman and Sage were hired through Fiverr by individuals later identified as Lovo employees. They were assured their recordings would be used solely for internal and academic research. However, Lovo allegedly utilized these recordings to train its AI voice generator, "Genny," marketing synthetic voices under names like "Kyle Snow" and "Sally Coleman" for commercial applications such as podcasts and advertisements.
The plaintiffs claim that these clones were nearly indistinguishable from their real voices and used without proper authorization or compensation. Their complaint includes federal copyright and trademark claims, state law consumer protection and right of publicity claims, along with breach of contract allegations.
Court’s Ruling
Lovo motioned to dismiss the complaint but faced partial denial. The court dismissed federal trademark and most copyright claims, as well as certain state common law claims, while allowing breach of contract, New York consumer protection, and right of publicity claims to proceed.
Breach of Contract
The court found sufficient evidence for breach of contract claims, rejecting Lovo’s Statute of Frauds argument. Contracts via Fiverr included usage limitations, which the court deemed enforceable based on online communications.
Lanham Act Claims
Lanham Act claims were dismissed. False association was rejected as voices weren’t used as brand identifiers. False advertising claims failed due to truthful marketing of synthetic voices.
Copyright Infringement
Direct infringement was allowed for Sage’s voice in Lovo videos, while other copyright claims lacked sufficient detail. AI-generated clones didn't infringe original recordings, and contributory infringement claims were dismissed.
New York Civil Rights Law
Plaintiffs’ right of publicity claims under Section 50 survived, with the court clarifying protections apply regardless of life status.
New York General Business Law
Consumer protection claims under Sections 349 and 350 proceeded, citing misleading practices harming consumers and plaintiffs as competitors.
Common Law Claims
Fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion, and unfair competition claims were dismissed or preempted by other statutes.
Implications for AI Companies and Content Creators
This case underscores the evolving legal landscape for AI companies using user-generated content. While Lovo succeeded on some fronts, the court’s ruling emphasizes protecting creators’ rights. Tech firms must navigate innovation with caution to avoid infringing on intellectual property. For voice actors, this serves as a reminder to protect their likenesses and recordings. Both sides should seek legal guidance in this rapidly changing field.