Tokyo court recognizes publicity rights may cover human voices

The court likened a person’s voice to their appearance, describing both as symbols of personality.[2] It said unauthorized use of a performer’s voice may infringe publicity rights when the voice has customer-attracting power and is used solely to exploit that appeal.[1] That formulation makes the commercial purpose and appeal of a voice relevant to the analysis; the ruling does not say that resemblance alone establishes infringement. Japan has no statute that explicitly defines a right to one’s voice.[1]

Tsuda sought the removal of TikTok videos, arguing that generative AI had imitated his voice without authorization.[1] The lawsuit concerned 188 videos posted between July 2024 and September 2025, with narration resembling his voice.[1] When the suit was filed, the account had more than 210,000 followers, and its videos averaged roughly 1.47 million views each.[1][3] The account’s creator was reported to earn between ¥500,000 and ¥750,000 a month from the videos.[3] Tsuda is best known for voicing Kento Nanami in “Jujutsu Kaisen.”[2]

The videos had already been removed, so the court did not decide whether Tsuda’s publicity right had been infringed.[1] It also dismissed his demand that TikTok remove them, finding that the platform operator had no obligation to take them down.[1] Tsuda’s attorney said the plaintiff would not appeal and that the arguments had been recognized in substance.[1] TikTok’s operating company said it would continue seeking a balance between technological advancement and rights protection.[1] The ruling therefore establishes a legal principle without resolving the central infringement question in this case.[1]

Japan’s Supreme Court first recognized publicity rights as legally protected in 2012, while the Tokyo ruling was the first time a Japanese court recognized legal protection for a person’s voice.[1] A Justice Ministry expert panel said in August that voices, like images, should be protected under publicity rights.[3] Copyright law does not protect a celebrity’s actual voice or its vocal qualities.[1] Tsuda’s legal team said its analysis found that generative AI intentionally produced a voice resembling his distinctive voice.[3] The ruling could make it easier to seek damages or injunctions for unauthorized voice use.[1]