Japan's First Ruling on Voice Rights: "Symbolic of Individual Personality"

On Wednesday, September 30, 2026, the Tokyo District Court issued Japan's first ruling recognizing that a person's voice is protected under the right of publicity. The case was brought by Kenjiro Tsuda, a 55-year-old voice actor known for playing Kento Nanami in the anime Jujutsu Kaisen, over videos on TikTok that used an AI-generated imitation of his voice.

"The human voice is symbolic of individual personality, just like one's portrait," Presiding Judge Aya Takahashi said, according to the Associated Press. The court held that "the unauthorised use of a performer's voice" can infringe publicity rights when the voice is used for its commercial appeal.

What the case was about

According to reporting by the AP, The Next Web and Inven Global, an anonymous account posted at least 188 videos between July 2024 and September 2025, mostly urban legends and paranormal stories, narrated by a synthetic voice that closely resembled Tsuda's distinctive baritone. The account had more than 200,000 followers. Inven Global reported an average of about 1.47 million views per video. Tsuda argued that the account's operator profited from his voice without permission and asked the court to order the videos removed.

A win on principle, a loss on the remedy

The court dismissed the removal claim. By the time of the verdict, the account had been closed and the videos deleted, so there was nothing left to order taken down. The Next Web reported that Tsuda's lawyer described the outcome as one that makes both sides look victorious.

The legal principle is what will last. The court reasoned by analogy to a person's portrait and set a test: protection applies when the voice is exploited for its commercial appeal. In our reading, ordinary resemblance, or a voice used for some other purpose, may fall outside that test.

Why it matters beyond anime

Japanese performers have been organizing on this issue for some time. The Next Web noted that voice actors launched a campaign called "No More" in 2024 against unauthorized AI voice replication, warning that unchecked cloning could undermine the profession. Complete Music Update pointed out that musicians are seeking the same kind of protection for their voices, and that some advocates argue for dedicated digital-replica rights, particularly in countries such as the UK that lack a general publicity right.

The timing is notable. The Tokyo ruling came on the same day the US Senate failed to pass the NO FAKES Act, the federal bill that would create an explicit right over voice and likeness, after a single senator objected. In the US, musicians are currently testing state publicity and biometric privacy laws instead, as in the Jason Isbell and David Lowery suit against Suno filed in August.

What remains open

Several questions are not answered by the reporting so far. The ruling comes from a district court, and the sources we reviewed did not say whether either side intends to appeal, so the principle could still be refined or narrowed by a higher court. The commercial-appeal test also leaves room for argument at the edges: a channel that uses a cloned voice to attract views and advertising is a clear example, but a fan project, a parody or a voice that is merely similar may be treated differently.

Enforcement is a separate problem. Tsuda's case was aimed at videos posted by an anonymous account, and by the time a court ruled, the account was gone. A right that is recognized in principle still depends on platforms acting quickly when a performer flags a clone, which is the same issue the takedown provisions of the US NO FAKES Act are meant to address.

Our analysis: courts are treating voice as identity

Across jurisdictions, a consistent idea is emerging: a voice is part of who someone is, and its commercial value belongs to that person. Japan reached it through case law, the US is debating it in Congress and state legislatures, and labels have written consent requirements for voice and likeness into their AI licensing deals. The details differ, especially on what counts as commercial use and what remedies are available, but the direction is similar.

For singers, the ruling's commercial-appeal test is the important part. A clone that trades on a recognizable voice to attract an audience is the clearest case. Generic "in the style of" output that does not identify anyone remains harder to challenge under publicity theories, which is why lawsuits elsewhere also lean on copyright and data-privacy claims.

What it means for independent artists

If your voice is recognizable and you work in Japan or with Japanese platforms, there is now a court-recognized basis to object when someone monetizes a clone of it. Wherever you are, the practical steps are the same: keep dated records of your original recordings, watch for impersonations, and read contract terms that touch voice or likeness rights before you sign. Starchild's approach rests on consent: the catalog is built on human-written songs, each carries an AI-transparency label, and the style models used for alternate versions are licensed, with revenue shared with the artists behind them.

Sources

• Associated Press via WRAL: Tokyo court grants legal protection to human voices in AI clone case
• The Next Web: Tokyo court rules the human voice is protected, in a TikTok AI clone case
• Inven Global: Claim Dismissed, Voice Rights Recognized: Tokyo Court Issues Ruling in Kenjiro Tsuda's AI Voice Cloning Lawsuit
• Complete Music Update: Japanese court says voice is protected by publicity rights; US appeals court says AI training is not fair use