About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships AI Tools & Services The Organization Working at WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets Future of IP WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Youth Examiners Innovation Ecosystems Economics Finance Intangible Assets Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism Music Fashion PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center World Intangible Investment Highlights WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions Build Back Fund National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Classification Assistant Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Staff Positions Affiliated Personnel Positions Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

China

CN109-j

Back

2025 WIPO IP Judges Forum Informal Case Summary - Beijing Internet Court, China [2024]: Yin v Company A and Others

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2025 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

 

Session 6: Personality Rights

Beijing Internet Court, China [2024]: Yin v Company A and Others 

Date of judgment: April 23, 2024

Issuing authority: Beijing Internet Court

Level of the issuing authority: First Instance

Type of procedure: Judicial (Civil)

Subject matter: Other

Plaintiff: Yin

Defendant:  1. Company A.

            2. Company B

            3. Company C.

            4. Company D.

            5. Company E.

 

Keywords: personality right, voice right, artificial intelligence, balance of interests, civil law

 

Basic facts: Yin Momo once recorded an audio recording for Company A. Company A provided the audio of this audio recording to Company B for use. Company B used this audio as material for AI processing to form a software product. This product enabled any text content to be presented in Yin Momo's voice. Company B sold this product externally. After purchasing this software product, Company C packaged it into its own software product and provided it to users for use.

 

Later, Yin Momo discovered that the voices used in the videos posted by users on some short video platforms were dubbings made based on his own voice. Upon investigation, he determined that the dubbings in the above-mentioned videos originated from the software product of Company C. Yin Momo had not authorized any of the above-mentioned companies to AI-process his voice or audio. Yin Momo brought a lawsuit to the court, requesting an order for Company B and Company C to immediately stop the infringement, make an apology, and for Companies A, B, and C to jointly compensate for losses totaling 600,000 yuan.

 

Held: The hearing court held that Yin Momo's voice rights and interests extend to the AI voice involved in the case. The voice of a natural person has uniqueness and stability, and can cause people to form thoughts or emotions related to that natural person. If the voice synthesized by AI can make the general public or the public in relevant fields associate it with that natural person according to the timbre, intonation, and pronunciation style, it can be recognized as having identifiability. Company A, Company B, and Company C carried out AI processing of his voice without the permission of Yin Momo, which constituted an infringement of Yin Momo's voice rights and interests and should bear corresponding legal responsibilities.

 

Regarding Yin Momo's request to stop the infringement and make an apology, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, the relevant products of Company B and Company C had been removed from circulation, so the request to stop the infringement had been realized. Since Company B and Company C had committed acts infringing on voice rights and interests, the specific method of apology claimed by Yin Momo was equivalent to the specific method of the infringing acts of Company B and Company C and the scope of the impact caused, and should be supported according to the law.

 

Regarding Yin Momo's claim for compensation, Company A and Company B did not obtain legal authorization and used Yin Momo's voice for AI processing. As such, they were at fault and should bear the compensation liability. Company C was not aware that Company B's software product was not authorized, and it purchased the relevant product at a reasonable price and had a reasonable reliance on the existence of legal authorization for the relevant product. Since  there was no subjective fault, Company C is not liable to compensate for losses. The Court comprehensively considered factors such as the infringement circumstances, the value of similar market products, and the playback volume of the product, and determined the amount of Yin Momo's loss as 250,000 yuan.

 

In the final judgment: Company B and Company C apologized to Yin Momo, and Company A and Company B jointly compensated for the loss of 250,000 yuan.

 

Relevant holdings in relation to Personality Rights: If an artificially intelligent technology-processed voice can be identified as that of a specific natural person by the general public or the public within a certain scope based on its timbre, intonation, and pronunciation style, such voice shall fall within the scope of protection of the natural person's voice rights and interests. The use of an artificially intelligent technology-processed voice without the permission of the natural person constitutes an infringement of the natural person's voice rights and interests.

 

Relevant legislation: Articles 995, 1000, 1019, and 1023 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China

 

Article 995：Where a personal right is infringed upon, the victim shall have the right to request the infringer to bear civil liability in accordance with this Code and other laws. The victim's right to request the cessation of the infringement, removal of the obstruction, elimination of the danger, rehabilitation of reputation, removal of adverse effects, and apology shall not be subject to the provisions on the limitation of actions.

 

Article 1000：Where a person assumes civil liability such as the removal of adverse effects, rehabilitation of reputation, or apology for the infringement of a personal right, it shall be commensurate with the specific circumstances of the act and the scope of the effects caused. Where the person refuses to assume the civil liability as prescribed in the preceding paragraph, the people's court may enforce it by such means as publishing announcements in newspapers, on the Internet and other media or publicizing the effective judgment documents, and the expenses incurred shall be borne by the person.

 

Article 1019：No organization or individual may infringe upon another person's right of portraiture by means of vilification, defamation, or forgery by using information technology. Without the consent of the person whose portraiture right is involved, no one may produce, use, or publicly disclose the portraiture of such person, unless otherwise provided by law. Without the consent of the person whose portraiture right is involved, the holder of the copyright in a portrait work may not use or publicly disclose the portraiture of such person by means of publication, reproduction, distribution, lease, exhibition, etc., unless otherwise provided by law.

 

Article 1023：The relevant provisions on the licensed use of portraiture shall be applied mutatis mutandis to the licensed use of a person's name, etc. The relevant provisions on the protection of the right of portraiture shall be applied mutatis mutandis to the protection of a natural person's voice.