While U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian dismissed some of the copyright and trademark-related claims, he allowed other key arguments to move forward, especially those related to New York’s right of publicity laws. These laws protect individuals from the unauthorized commercial use of their name, image, or — as in this case — their voice.
In his ruling, Judge Subramanian said that while voice impersonations by AI don’t always amount to direct copyright infringement, there’s still a plausible case that Lovo misused the actors’ identities for commercial gain. He noted the plaintiffs “plausibly alleged” that their voices were recognizable and used in a way that could confuse the public or imply endorsement.
The judge also granted the actors permission to amend their complaint to strengthen their allegations that Lovo violated contractual agreements. Specifically, Lehrman and Sage argue that they only gave Lovo limited rights to their recordings for “internal research” — and never consented to those samples being turned into marketable synthetic voice products.
Lovo has denied any wrongdoing, arguing that its platform trains AI on general voice data and that any resemblances are coincidental. The company insists it complies with applicable copyright laws and that its usage falls within fair use and emerging norms around generative AI. But this case is one of the first to test those claims in a courtroom setting.
Legal observers say this decision is a warning to AI developers who use real human inputs without watertight consent agreements. This ruling shows courts are starting to take seriously the misuse of real people’s voices in commercial AI tools.
The case comes amid growing backlash in Hollywood and beyond over the use of AI-generated voices and likenesses. It echoes recent controversies, including Scarlett Johansson’s dispute with OpenAI over a ChatGPT voice that allegedly resembled hers.