The Voices Need Protection

Contributor: Purnima Sharma

“Life is all about evolution” 

The quote denotes the essence of life and stands true for our changing times. Things that were  unimaginable before are a reality now. This could be comprehended with a classic example of  ‘Technology’. In almost every aspect of our life, technology has altered how we live, for  example, Computers and other electronic devices which were once a luxury, have now  became a necessity. It was once widely believed that the development of technology would  primarily influence physical labour. Still, there has undoubtedly been change in service  professions as well, including the field of law. 

Legal institutions have a strong incentive to use technology in order to satisfy client wants  and expectations because of the pressures and demands from clients. With the internet  permeating every element of social, professional, and personal life, technology law and  intellectual property (IP) law are vital fields of legal practice and public policy today.  Lawyers in the public and corporate sectors must handle a number of policy and legal issues  brought up by the development of artificial intelligence (AI) and its other tools 

The Birth of AI

In addition to this evolution, one of the greatest inventions in the field of technology is the  ‘MAN-MADE INTELLEGENCE’ or commonly known as the ‘AI’ (Artificial Intelligence).  The term was first coined by John Mc Carthy in 1956 and is considered to a landmark  innovation. It was developed to make our software advance with such a design that makes our  work easier and save a lot of time and indeed is doing a good job. 

But is A.I. all about benefits and no pitfalls? 

A recent trend in these modern times include AI voice cloning, which is an incredible  technological advance that has the power to completely change the way we interact with  technology and communicate. It is no longer the stuff of science fiction films. These days, all  we need is a smartphone and an internet connection to analyse and recreate speech. Voice  cloning humanizes encounters with AI by bringing warmth and naturalness to talks with  robots. Artificial intelligence (AI) voices that mimic human speech patterns make the  interaction more relatable and obfuscate the distinction between humans and machines. 

However, Concerns concerning potential abuse, such as speech-based frauds and  impersonations that take advantage of the technology’s genuineness, are raised by AI voice  cloning. The line separating real voices from artificial ones becomes hazy, which exacerbates  trust and deceit concerns. With the increasing sophistication of AI voice copying, there is a  risk of losing individual vocal identities. It’s possible to doubt the veracity of the voices,  which could make it harder to tell the difference between synthetic and real voices.

Legal Complexities

Experts claim that fraudsters are using commonly accessible “voice cloning” methods to trick  victims into thinking that their loved ones are in danger and urgently need money. This is present concerns over the rights to intellectual property and copyright regarding synthesized  voices. There may be legal conflicts pertaining to usage rights and ownership. Users can  utilize these bots to mimic the voice of any celebrity or musician they like. On social media, a  lot of songs created by AI are becoming popular and confusing the general public. These bots  have also occasionally been used to disseminate false information about the artists.  

A recent case has been filed by a well-known Hollywood actress, Scarlett Johanssan1, where  she has taken legal action against OpenAI, claiming that the company inadvertently used her  voice for its conversational AI system. The dispute arises from an invitation extended by  OpenAI CEO Sam Altman to Johansson to provide her voice for the AI system. Despite her  initial refusal, OpenAI unveiled a demo featuring a voice that closely resembled Johansson’s  role in the film “Her.” 

This highlights general concerns about AI using human-like features and the necessity of  more explicit regulations to protect individuals’ rights. 

Another major case that made headlines recently was a collaborative track featuring AI generated facsimiles of Drake and Weekend ‘s2 voices titled “Heart on My Sleeve”. After the  song initially popped up on YouTube and streaming services, it disappeared as Universal  Music apparently sent take down notices to the DSPs. It has since been re-uploaded by  unofficial third parties across the internet and streaming services posing a concern on  copyright rights. 

These cases raised an important concern that how can we stop AI from stealing the voices of  artists without their consent? 

The ELVIS Act

Tennessee State made an attempt to remedy this on March 21, 2024 (in the United States). A  new law known as the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act of 20243(or  “Elvis Act”) has been passed by the state. The Personal Rights Protection Act of 19844(the  “Personal Rights Act”) is superseded by the Elvis Act. 

Part of the reason the Personal Rights Act was established was to provide Elvis Presley more  publicity rights after his death because, at the time, Tennessee had not recognized  

  • https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/22/tech/openai-scarlett-johansson-lawsuit-sam-altman/index.html
  • https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/19/arts/music/ai-drake-the-weeknd-fake.html 
  • https://www.tn.gov/governor/news/2024/3/21/photos–gov–lee-signs-elvis-act-into-law.html
  • https://preslaw.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/prpa.pdf

posthumous publicity rights. Before, the Personal Rights Act forbade the unapproved  commercial use of a person’s name, image, or likeness. The Elvis Act added voice as a  protectable element, so expanding the publicity right. Artificial intelligence services and other  online platforms that permit the unauthorized use of artist voices and likenesses are greatly  endangered by this. 

This act defined ‘voice’ as ‘A sound in a medium that is readily identifiable and attributable  to a particular individual, regardless of whether the sound contains the actual voice or a  simulation of the individual’s voice’. This term broadens the scope of liability under the  ELVIS Act to include anyone who can mimic other artists in addition to those who use  existing sound recordings of someone else’s voice (such as soundalike artists who mimic the  voices of celebrities). 

India & Voice Cloning

Voice cloning produced by artificial intelligence (AI) has becoming more common, and  cybercriminals in India have been exploiting it to demand ransom payments. According to the  National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), Delhi, the nation’s capital, alone had 685  cybercrime cases in 2022 compared to 345 in 2021 and 166 in 20205.  

Lakshmi Chand Chawla, a senior person from Yamuna Vihar in Delhi, was duped into  sending ₹ 50,000 to the con artists just a year ago in December. Through WhatsApp, he  received a ransom demand that included an AI-cloned child’s voice. According to the  authorities, Mr. Chawla got a WhatsApp message from an unknown number saying that his  cousin’s boy had been abducted. The perpetrators played an audio tape of the child begging  for assistance in order to persuade the victim. Fearful and duped by the convincing voice, Mr.  Chawla quickly obliged with the con artists’ requests and sent ₹ 50,000 through Paytm. 

Even voice actors are receiving sporadic calls asking them to “steal their voices”.  The Association of Voice Artists (AVA) in India is currently fighting against unethical  techniques that involve exploiting voice-over artists’ phone calls, audition tapes, or even  publicly accessible audio to create AI-generated voice clones. 

Celebrity voices are protected in India under personality rights. Therefore, regulations  preventing the misuse of the voices of celebrities and artists and holding artificial intelligence  corporations accountable for offering software that facilitates such misuse have a legitimate  basis. 

In the case of Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi6, the Delhi High Court issued an injunction  effectively prohibiting the general public (the “John Doe” defendants) from violating Mr.  Amitabh Bachchan’s publicity or personality rights by misusing his name, likeness,  

  • https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/what-is-ai-voice-cloning-how-to-avoid-being-scammed-by-it5043057#:~:text=Artificial%20Intelligence%20(AI)-generated,Crime%20 
  • https://indiankanoon.org/doc/23523817/

photograph, voice, or any other uniquely identifiable characteristics for any kind of  commercial gain. This decision recognized voice as a component of personality rights. 

Deepfakes were also brought up recently in Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life and Ors7. It was  discovered that some defendants were exploiting Mr. Anil Kapoor’s personality rights by,  among other things, generating disparaging images by superimposing his face on the bodies  of other well-known actors using generative artificial intelligence. Mr. Anil Kapoor received  temporary relief from the Delhi High Court to prevent unapproved commercial use of his  name, likeness, voice, demeanour, and other distinctive qualities. 

Conclusion

The swift progress of AI technology, namely in the area of voice cloning, has brought about  notable prospects as well as formidable obstacles. AI voice cloning offers significant  advantages in a number of domains, but it also has a number of dangerous hazards, such as  the possibility of fraud, impersonation, copyright infringement, and privacy invasion. In order  to solve these challenges, the legal environment is still changing. Tennessee, for example, in  the United States, has taken the initiative to pass the ELVIS Act. The issue is especially  severe in India, where cybercriminals use AI voice cloning to commit various fraudulent acts  and demand ransom. 

Some remedies that can be implemented to ensure safety from this ongoing and even  upcoming AI threats: 

  1. Legislation: Create extensive statutes that particularly address AI voice cloning and  safeguard people’s vocal identities as part of their personality rights, such to the  ELVIS Act. 
  2. Technological solutions: To assist distinguish between real and synthetic sounds,  promote the development of voice authentication systems and AI detection  technologies. 
  3. Industry self-regulation: To stop the abuse of voice cloning technology, encourage the  development of moral standards and best practices for AI firms and voice actors. 4. Public knowledge: Start public awareness campaigns to educate people about the  dangers of AI voice cloning and how to avoid falling for similar frauds. 5. International cooperation: Encourage nations to work together to create international  guidelines and standards for AI voice cloning technology. 
  4. Improved cybersecurity measures: To stop unwanted access, put in place stricter  security procedures for voice-based authentication systems. 
  5. Voice artists’ legal protection: Give voice actors’ performances and copyright and  intellectual property rights more clarity. 
  • https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113724486/
  1. Mechanisms for obtaining consent: Provide strong frameworks that guarantee the  original voice owners’ control and transparency when using their voices in AI  systems. 
  2. AI responsibility: Apply legal and regulatory pressure to AI businesses that misuse  their voice cloning capabilities. 
  3. Research and development: Make investments in studies to enhance the ability to  identify artificial intelligence (AI)-generated speech and create defences against  nefarious use. 

We can reduce the hazards involved in AI voice cloning while responsibly utilizing its  potential advantages by putting these fixes into practice. 

References

  1. https://www.studocu.com/en-gb/document/university-of-sussex/professional-negligence/negligence-essay-a-critical-analysis-of-the-impact-of-technology-on lawyers-and-the-future-of-legal-services/1554388 
  2. https://medium.com/@shahhardik2905/exploring-the-pros-and-cons-of-ai-voice cloning 
  3. f4bb15514284#:~:text=Privacy%20Concerns%20and%20Data%20Security,theft%20 or%20other%20malicious%20activities. 
  4. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ai-scam-voice-cloning-rising/ 
  5. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/voice-actors-air-their-fears about-voice-stealing-ai/articleshow/106617399.cms?from=mdr 
  6. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/what-is-ai-voice-cloning-how-to-avoid-being scammed-by-it-5043057#:~:text=Artificial%20Intelligence%20(AI)- 
  7. generated,Crime%20 
  8. https://variety.com/2023/music/news/ai-generated-drake-the-weeknd-song-submitted for-grammys-1235714805/ 
  9. https://www.azbpartners.com/bank/delhi-hc-passes-omnibus-order-upholding-actor amitabh-bachchans-personality-rights/ 
  10. https://iprmentlaw.com/2024/04/14/tennessees-elvis-act-protecting-the-voice-of-an artist/ 
  11. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/19/arts/music/ai-drake-the-weeknd-fake.html
  12. https://www.spiceworks.com/tech/artificial-intelligence/news/scarlett-johansson-sues openai-for-voice-misuse/ 
  13. https://dig.watch/updates/us-voice-actors-claim-ai-firm-illegally-copied-their-voices

©2023. SatyakiLegal. All Rights Reserved.

Scroll to Top