关于知识产权 知识产权培训 树立尊重知识产权的风尚 知识产权外联 部门知识产权 知识产权和热点议题 特定领域知识产权 专利和技术信息 商标信息 外观设计信息 地理标志信息 植物品种信息(UPOV) 知识产权法律、条约和判决 知识产权资源 知识产权报告 专利保护 商标保护 外观设计保护 地理标志保护 植物品种保护(UPOV) 知识产权争议解决 知识产权局业务解决方案 知识产权服务缴费 谈判与决策 发展合作 创新支持 公私伙伴关系 人工智能工具和服务 组织简介 在产权组织任职 问责制 专利 商标 外观设计 地理标志 版权 商业秘密 知识产权的未来 WIPO学院 讲习班和研讨会 知识产权执法 WIPO ALERT 宣传 世界知识产权日 WIPO杂志 案例研究和成功故事 知识产权新闻 产权组织奖 企业 高校 土著人民 司法机构 青年 审查员 创新生态系统 经济学 金融 无形资产 性别平等 全球卫生 气候变化 竞争政策 可持续发展目标 遗传资源、传统知识和传统文化表现形式 前沿技术 移动应用 体育 旅游 音乐 时尚 PATENTSCOPE 专利分析 国际专利分类 ARDI - 研究促进创新 ASPI - 专业化专利信息 全球品牌数据库 马德里监视器 Article 6ter Express数据库 尼斯分类 维也纳分类 全球外观设计数据库 国际外观设计公报 Hague Express数据库 洛迦诺分类 Lisbon Express数据库 全球品牌数据库地理标志信息 PLUTO植物品种数据库 GENIE数据库 产权组织管理的条约 WIPO Lex - 知识产权法律、条约和判决 产权组织标准 知识产权统计 WIPO Pearl(术语) 产权组织出版物 国家知识产权概况 产权组织知识中心 全球无形资产投资精要 产权组织技术趋势 全球创新指数 世界知识产权报告 PCT - 国际专利体系 ePCT 布达佩斯 - 国际微生物保藏体系 马德里 - 国际商标体系 eMadrid 第六条之三(徽章、旗帜、国徽) 海牙 - 国际外观设计体系 eHague 里斯本 - 国际地理标志体系 eLisbon UPOV PRISMA 调解 仲裁 专家裁决 域名争议 检索和审查集中式接入(CASE) 数字查询服务(DAS) WIPO Pay 产权组织往来账户 产权组织各大会 常设委员会 会议日历 WIPO Webcast 产权组织正式文件 发展议程 技术援助 知识产权培训机构 重建基金 国家知识产权战略 政策和立法咨询 合作枢纽 技术与创新支持中心(TISC) 技术转移 发明人援助计划(IAP) WIPO GREEN 产权组织的PAT-INFORMED 无障碍图书联合会 产权组织服务创作者 WIPO Translate 语音转文字 分类助手 成员国 观察员 总干事 部门活动 驻外办事处 工作人员职位 附属人员职位 采购 成果和预算 财务报告 监督
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
法律 条约 判决 按管辖区浏览

中国

CN109-j

返回

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 995Where 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 1000Where 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 1019No 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 1023The 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.