AI Voice Cloning & Right of Publicity
AI voice cloning uses machine learning to synthesize a reproduction of a specific person's voice from audio recordings, enabling generation of new speech in that voice from minimal training data. In entertainment law, voice cloning implicates California's right of publicity statutes, SAG-AFTRA contract provisions, new California legislation (AB 2602, AB 1836), and the proposed federal NO FAKES Act. The 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike elevated voice cloning to a central contract dispute — the resulting provisions are the most significant new performer protection in decades.
Voice actors, musicians, and on-screen talent face direct, immediate economic harm from unauthorized voice cloning. A studio can theoretically replace a voice actor's future sessions with a clone trained on their past recordings. A label can generate new songs in a deceased artist's voice without heir consent. The legal framework to prevent this is partially in place — California law provides state-level protection, guild agreements provide contractual protection, and federal legislation is pending — but enforcement gaps remain significant.
California's right of publicity statute — prohibits unauthorized commercial use of a living person's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness. The primary state-law protection against unauthorized AI voice cloning for commercial purposes.
Requires that any contract provision allowing use of a digital replica of a performer's voice include an individualized description of the intended use and be reviewed and approved by the performer's licensed talent agent or attorney before signing.
Requires consent from the estate of a deceased performer before their digital replica (voice or likeness) can be used in an audiovisual work. No exception for historical or archival uses.
Requires informed written consent for any digital replica, compensation at the performer's daily rate for each day of use, and approval rights over deployment.
Would create a federal property right over digital voice replicas, providing a federal cause of action and preempting future state laws while preserving California's existing protections. Ordered reported by Senate Judiciary Committee June 18, 2026.
Whether using a soundalike singer to deliberately imitate Bette Midler's distinctive voice in a commercial constituted misappropriation of her right of publicity.
The Ninth Circuit held that deliberate imitation of a distinctive voice for commercial purposes constitutes misappropriation under California law — the foundational precedent now applied to AI voice cloning claims.
Whether using a Tom Waits soundalike in a Doritos commercial violated his right of publicity.
Affirmed and extended Midler — established that a performer's distinctive voice is a protected attribute, and that deliberate commercial imitation is actionable regardless of whether the original recording is used.
Voice cloning creates a particularly acute disruption in the voice acting and music industries — sectors where the performer's voice is literally the entire commercial product. The per-day compensation requirement in SAG-AFTRA's 2023 contract makes large-scale AI voice deployment more expensive than studios anticipated, but does not eliminate it. The real compliance challenge is the consent requirement — studios cannot use past recordings to train voice clones without prospective, individualized consent that most existing agreements do not include.
Audit existing talent agreements for voice actors and musicians — most agreements predating 2023 do not contain adequate AI voice provisions and require amendment or supplemental consent agreements.
For new talent agreements, include California AB 2602-compliant AI voice provisions with individualized use descriptions — blanket authorizations do not satisfy the statute.
For deceased performer digital voice replicas, obtain estate consent before pre-production begins — AB 1836 applies regardless of when the original recordings were made.
Advise musician clients that their recording contracts may not contain adequate protection against label use of AI voice clones — a separate AI rider to the recording agreement should be negotiated.
For productions using AI-generated voice content, maintain records of consent, compensation, and approval — enforcement disputes will turn on documentation.
California AB 2602 requires individualized consent descriptions and professional review for AI voice replica provisions — blanket authorizations do not satisfy the statute.
SAG-AFTRA's 2023 contract requires day-rate compensation for each day a voice clone is used — not a one-time licensing fee.
Midler v. Ford establishes that deliberate commercial imitation of a distinctive voice is actionable even without using the original recording — AI soundalikes are covered.
Deceased performers' estates have rights over voice replicas under California AB 1836 — no exception for historical use.
The NO FAKES Act, if enacted, will create federal civil liability and a nationwide private right of action for unauthorized digital replicas.
Not without the artist's informed written consent under California AB 2602 and SAG-AFTRA's AI provisions (if applicable). Most existing recording agreements do not contain adequate AI authorization provisions — the label would need to negotiate a separate consent agreement.
The statute requires a specific description of the intended use — title of the specific project, type of use (dialogue, singing, narration), and scope. 'For use in any audiovisual works produced by Studio' does not satisfy the requirement.
Yes — courts applying California misappropriation law to AI voice cloning would apply the Midler framework: if the AI deliberately reproduces a distinctive voice for commercial purposes, it constitutes misappropriation regardless of whether the original recording is used.