Commercial use of an imitated voice may violate rights in Tokyo ruling
The Tokyo District Court said unauthorized use of a performer’s voice to exploit its commercial appeal can infringe publicity rights in a case brought by Kenjiro Tsuda over allegedly imitative TikTok videos. It denied the requested removal order because the account had already been deleted. The ruling answers a legal question that was still pending days earlier; it does not establish infringement in every video or impose a new removal order on TikTok.
Artificial Intelligence··Night
The court drew a line around commercial use of voice
The Tokyo District Court said on September 30 that a performer’s voice can receive protection under publicity rights in a suit brought by voice actor Kenjiro Tsuda. Bengo4.com and The Guardian both reported that the ruling concerned TikTok videos Tsuda alleged used an AI imitation of his voice. The court said unauthorized use may infringe the right when it is aimed specifically at exploiting a voice’s power to attract an audience or customers. That principle does not make every vocal resemblance an automatic infringement; purpose and the facts of the use matter. Tsuda had sought an order requiring the platform to remove videos posted by an anonymous account. The decision supplies a concrete judicial answer to how a recognizable voice can be treated when AI is used to imitate it.[1], [2]
The deleted account ended the removal request
The court nevertheless declined to order the removal Tsuda requested. Bengo4.com says the posting account had been deleted during the case, leaving nothing for an order to remove. The Guardian also reported that the videos were gone when the court dismissed the requested remedy. This outcome sits alongside, rather than erases, the court’s view that a voice can be protected. It does not mean the court made a final infringement finding for every video or issued a fresh deletion instruction to TikTok. Tsuda’s lawyer Keisuke Hirano said the disappearance of the account and videos achieved his client’s original objective. Tsuda sought no damages, and his lawyer said he did not plan an appeal.[1], [2]
The ruling advances a case previously awaiting decision
Tsuda said narration posted from July 2024 resembled his voice. According to his lawyer, an attempt in 2025 to identify the account owner yielded an internet address that could not identify the person because the relevant logs were no longer retained. An out-of-court removal request to TikTok did not succeed, and litigation followed. Reporting before the final days of September described the court decision as pending. The new development is the court’s statement about voice rights and its refusal of the requested removal because the account was gone. The decision describes a basis for protecting a voice against AI imitation, while leaving questions of liability for individual videos and any general platform duty outside the order granted in this case.[1]
