Truace
Subscribe

Legal protection of actor Kenjiro Tsuda's voice against AI cloning on TikTok

Source article: AI tool that copied actor’s ‘lustrous’ voice violated his rights, Tokyo court rules

A court in Japan has ruled that the human voice has legal protection after a landmark case involving a well-known actor and a TikTok account that he claimed had cloned his “lustrous” baritone voice in its AI-generated videos. Tokyo district court said on Wednesday that voices should enjoy the same protection as publicity rights, at the end of a closely watched legal action brought against TikTok by Kenjiro Tsuda – best known for voicing the character Kento Nanami in the anime Jujutsu Kaisen. But the court dismis…

By the Truvace desk2 min read1 sourceJournalismTRV-2026-1510· cite & verify
AI tool that copied actor’s ‘lustrous’ voice violated his rights, Tokyo court rules
Trace impact readingContested
P 54The P score combines the specificity and measured human impact of the grounded problem claim with the strength of this Trace’s cited sources.

Both sides are scored from claims and sources, not community votes.

G 58The G score combines the specificity and measured human impact of the grounded gain claim with the strength of this Trace’s cited sources.

In brief

A Tokyo district court ruled that a performer's voice enjoys protection comparable to publicity rights. The case was brought by voice actor Kenjiro Tsuda against TikTok over an anonymous account whose AI-narrated videos allegedly cloned his baritone voice. The court rejected a removal order because the videos had already been deleted.

The ruling matters because it gives performers in Japan a legal route against AI voice imitation, an area where Japan's voice actors say their livelihoods are under pressure. Open questions remain: the platform said it would study the judgment before deciding its next steps, and the protection is limited to uses aimed at exploiting a voice's commercial appeal.

Main points

  1. The court treated a voice as 'as symbolic of one's personality as portraits are', which is why it extended publicity-rights protection to it.
  2. Protection applies if the voice is used exclusively to take advantage of its commercial appeal, according to Judge Aya Takahashi.
  3. Tsuda said 188 TikTok videos posted between July 2024 and September last year used a voice that could only be his.
  4. TikTok argued the videos used a 'generic male voice' and that perceived similarity was highly subjective.
  5. The removal request was dismissed because the videos had been deleted soon after the suit was filed.

The gain

A Japanese court for the first time recognised a performer's voice as protected under publicity rights, giving voice actors a legal basis to challenge unauthorised AI imitation.

The problem

The court still declined to order removal of the videos because the user had already deleted them, and the account had run 188 AI-voiced videos for over a year, so the ruling did not halt the harm itself.

The rundown

Tsuda, 55, is best known for voicing Kento Nanami in Jujutsu Kaisen. He sued TikTok's operator last November, saying an anonymous account's videos used a deep, lustrous voice that could only be his. The lawsuit is believed to be the first in Japan aimed at defending an individual's vocal identity against AI-generated copies.

The account used a picture resembling Tsuda's anime character and combined images with AI-generated speech about urban legends, the occult and conspiracy theories. It once had more than 200,000 subscribers. According to the legal complaint, cited via Kyodo, the clips could have earned the owner monthly revenue in the range of ¥75,000 to ¥500,000.

TikTok said it would respect the judgment while examining the details, and pledged to keep balancing technology development with rights protection. The Japan Actors Union's Yuko Sasaki said an actor's voice results from years of training. In 2024 actors launched a 'No More' campaign against unauthorised use of their faces and voices in AI content.

What this doesn’t fix

The ruling's protection is conditional on use exclusively for commercial appeal, and the court did not order removal of the videos because the user had already deleted them. TikTok has not yet said what it will do next.

Sources

  1. JournalismThe Guardian2026-09-30

The debate