The Tokyo District Court ruled on 30 September that a voice, like a person’s image, can embody an individual’s identity and possess commercial value. However, it dismissed voice actor Kenjiro Tsuda’s request to remove videos from TikTok because the disputed material had already been deleted.
Presiding judge Aya Takahashi held that unauthorised use of a distinctive voice could infringe publicity rights when undertaken solely to exploit its ability to attract customers or audiences. The judgment is understood to be Japan’s first judicial recognition that voices can fall within this form of protection.
Crucially, the court did not find that TikTok or the unidentified video creator had infringed Tsuda’s rights. It made no final determination about whether the narration actually reproduced his voice, whether artificial intelligence had been used to imitate him, or whether the particular videos satisfied the legal conditions for infringement.
That distinction limits the immediate outcome for Tsuda while giving performers and businesses a clearer indication of how existing legal principles may apply to synthetic speech. Publicity rights concern the commercial exploitation of identifiable personal attributes, rather than granting ownership of every sound resembling someone’s voice.
Tsuda, known for portraying Kento Nanami in the anime series Jujutsu Kaisen, brought proceedings against TikTok’s Singapore-based operator in November 2025. He sought the deletion of 188 videos uploaded by an anonymous account between July 2024 and September 2025.
The clips addressed urban legends, paranormal subjects and other topics, using narration that Tsuda maintained closely resembled his distinctive deep voice. His lawyers argued that generative AI had been employed to reproduce its recognisable qualities without permission and draw viewers through the actor’s established popularity.
The account accumulated approximately 210,000 followers. Court submissions described substantial viewing figures and alleged that the videos generated advertising revenue, supporting Tsuda’s contention that his voice had been exploited commercially. Those claims were contested rather than established by the judgment.
TikTok disputed the alleged resemblance and argued that the narration was an ordinary male voice. The platform’s position was that the account holder had processed a friend’s voice using AI, rather than copied Tsuda’s recordings or deliberately recreated his vocal identity.
The court ultimately disposed of the removal request on narrower grounds. The account was deleted on 29 May 2026, and the associated video data was removed from TikTok’s servers on 28 June after the account was not restored within the permitted period.
With no disputed videos remaining on the platform, the judges found that there was nothing available for TikTok to remove. The court therefore rejected the requested order without deciding the contested factual questions concerning voice similarity and the method used to produce the narration.
The case also raised arguments under Japan’s Unfair Competition Prevention Act, which addresses specified forms of commercial misrepresentation and misuse of identifying signs. The judgment did not establish that the disputed narration met the statutory requirements for a violation.
The legal reasoning is particularly relevant to performers whose voices are commercially recognisable even when their faces are absent. Advances in generative AI allow convincing synthetic narration to be produced without using an original recording in the finished material, complicating traditional distinctions between copying audio and imitating identity.
Japan’s Justice Ministry had issued guidance in August indicating that voices, like likenesses, may attract publicity-right protection. The court’s reasoning is consistent with that approach, although the judgment does not create a blanket prohibition on voice imitation or settle every question involving AI-generated speech.
TikTok said it would respect the judgment while examining its details and considering its response. The company also stated that it would continue seeking a balance between technological development and protection of individual rights.
The decision leaves unresolved how courts should assess evidence of vocal resemblance, including acoustic comparisons, audience recognition and the creator’s intentions. Those questions were argued in this litigation but became unnecessary once the deletion request lost its purpose.
The ruling arose from a civil removal claim, not a criminal prosecution or a damages award. Its operative result was dismissal of Tsuda’s application, while its discussion of voice-based publicity rights addressed a legal question that had remained unsettled in Japanese courts.
Follow Arabian Post
Select Arabian Post as your preferred source on Google and MSN News for trusted business news and Arab politics and updates.
