Voice Actors' Lawsuit Against AI Voiceover Startup Lovo Can Proceed, Rules New York Federal Judge

Voice Actors' Lawsuit Against AI Voiceover Startup Lovo Can Proceed, Rules New York Federal Judge

Introduction

A federal judge in New York has ruled that a pair of voice actors can proceed with a lawsuit against AI voiceover startup Lovo, accusing the company of violating their rights by using their voices in its technology without permission.

Factual Background

The voice actors, Paul Skye Lehrman and Linnea Sage, alleged that they were approached on freelancer marketplace Fiverr to provide voiceover work for anonymous clients. They claimed that Lovo later sold the use of their voices to subscribers without their permission, using pseudonyms "Kyle Snow" and "Sally Coleman" for Lehrman and Sage, respectively.

Procedural Background

The voice actors filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Lovo, alleging copyright and trademark infringement, as well as violation of their publicity rights. Lovo asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the actors' claims were unfounded.

Issues

1. Copyright Infringement: Whether Lovo's use of the voice actors' voice recordings for AI training constitutes copyright infringement.

2. Trademark Infringement: Whether Lovo's use of the voice actors' voices constitutes trademark infringement.

3. Publicity Rights: Whether Lovo's use of the voice actors' voices violates their commercial rights under New York law.

Contentions of Parties

Voice Actors' Contentions: The voice actors argued that Lovo's use of their voices without permission constitutes copyright and trademark infringement, as well as a violation of their publicity rights.

Lovo's Contentions: Lovo argued that the voice actors' claims were unfounded and that their story "does not relate to Lovo's interactions with named Plaintiffs and fails to state an actionable claim."

Reasoning & Analysis

The U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled that the voice actors were not entitled to trademark protection for their voices and that Lovo's "imperfect mimicry" of them did not infringe their copyrights. However, the court allowed the voice actors to amend their claim that Lovo's use of their voice recordings for AI training violated their copyrights. The court also permitted the voice actors to advance their claim that Lovo violated their commercial rights in their voices under New York law.

Final Outcome

The court denied Lovo's bid to dismiss the claims that it violated the voice actors' publicity rights and allowed the voice actors to proceed with their lawsuit. The case will continue, with the voice actors permitted to file an updated complaint alleging copyright infringement and advancing their claim under New York law.

Implications

The decision showcases the importance of protecting individual rights in the age of AI and the need for companies to obtain proper permissions and licenses when using creative works. It also emphasizes the role of courts in balancing the interests of creators and technology companies.

In this case the voice actors were represented by Steve Cohen of Pollock Cohen. Meanwhile Lavo was represented by David Case and Michael Lazaroff of Rimon Law.