In the fall of 2024, a draft law was submitted to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation providing for the introduction of protection of the citizen's voice as a special object of personal non-property rights (intangible good).[1]
The authors of the draft law proposed to enshrine in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation a special Article 152.3 "Protection of the Voice of a Citizen", providing therein for the effect in cases of use of the voice of a natural person of provisions almost entirely similar to those that are currently in force in cases of use of images of natural persons (Article 152.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), namely:
1) the use of a citizen's voice and recordings containing it, including those created with the help of special technologies, should be allowed only with the consent of the citizen;
2) consent to the use of a citizen's voice after his death must be obtained from his children and spouse, or in their absence, from his parents;
(3) Exceptions to the general rule that consent must be obtained for the use of voice are provided for the following cases:
- use in the public interest (state, public and other);
- recording of voice in places open to the public or at public events, unless voice is the primary object of the use;
- voice recording for a fee.
It was envisioned that in case of violation of the established requirements, citizens would have the right to demand the deletion of recordings containing their voices distributed on the Internet, to prohibit their use, as well as to demand the seizure by court order and the destruction without compensation of copies of tangible media containing recordings of their voices. It was also planned to solve the problem of unauthorized use of recordings for synthesis of artificial voices.[2] Concerns about the development of human speech synthesis systems have been repeatedly expressed by voice actors and dubbing actors.[3]
The laws of foreign countries address the issues of voice protection in various ways, including both by including it along with name and image in the list of intangible goods and by adopting special legislative acts.[4]
However, the draft law was not supported by the Presidential Council for Codification and Improvement of Civil Legislation, which pointed out that there was no need to introduce a separate new article in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the protection of the citizen's voice as an intangible good, since the current article 150 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation contains a non-exhaustive list of intangible goods, therefore, its provisions can be applied to protect the citizen's voice along with the goods listed therein ("".life and health, personal dignity, personal inviolability, honor and good name, business reputation, name of a citizen, etc."). In support of this position, the Council referred to the definitions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation[5] and existing court decisions.[6]
The Government of the Russian Federation, in its official opinion on the draft, supported this conclusion and also noted that a citizen's voice can be protected on the basis of personal data legislation, as voice recording can be considered as processing of a citizen's biometric data.
The need to adopt the bill was explained by its initiators primarily due to the development of speech synthesis technologies and their mass use, including in the voiceover of content, the possibility of using voice imitations created with the help of "artificial intelligence" in ways that are unacceptable for its owner.
The explanatory memorandum to the bill notes that voice is an intangible good, "due to height, range, strength, timbre and other features is a unique characteristic of a person, allowing to identify his/her personality" and can also be used "not only ... in everyday life, but also in professional life.», «Can be a source of income for the individual and be of commercial value, e.g. dubbing actors, singers, theater actors».
The problem is that these theses, perfectly justified in relation to individual cases, can lead to ambiguous consequences when the provisions based on them are enshrined in law.
Unlike images of physical persons, whose characteristic features, due to the peculiarities of evolutionary development, a person can associate with certain known people with a sufficiently high degree of reliability, recognizing people by voice is a more difficult task. In the absence of pronounced individual features, voice identification is largely determined by the subjective perception of this or that person. Establishing voice protection may create the prerequisites for claims based entirely on such subjective perception, which would require professional expertise to refute or confirm. In addition, in speech synthesis, similarity of voice may be achieved through the use of close but not entirely identical characteristics, and the question will inevitably arise as to when such a "synthesized" voice can be considered "borrowed" from a particular individual.
As applied to the human voice, it is reasonable to speak not about "uniqueness", but rather about recognizability. With the help of special programs and technical means, unique components can be identified for each voice, but from the point of view of human perception, it is primarily the recognizability of a particular person's voice for other people that will matter, since when copying a voice or synthesizing it, one strives to ensure just such recognizability, to take advantage of the familiarity of a certain voice, taking into account its inherent timbre, range, peculiarities of pronunciation of certain sounds and their combinations, etc.
Consequently, the protection of the voice by means of civil law is required primarily in cases where a famous voice (actor, public figure, etc.) is used. A different situation may occur when using other people's voices to commit unlawful acts, but the responsibility for their commission comes in accordance with the norms of criminal law[7] and it is not necessary to recognize voice as a special object of civil law protection in order to incur such liability.
From the above theses of the authors of the draft law, it can be concluded that the purpose of its development was not only to suppress cases of illegal borrowing of voices, but also to create a legal framework for the use of voice samples for various objects, including with the possibility of their subsequent introduction into commercial circulation, that is, in many respects, to solve the problems of "commercialization" of the use of voices. At present, this task can be solved only partially, for individual cases, with significant limitations and a high degree of uncertainty.
The fame of the voice is usually associated with the professional activity of its owner, with his participation in the creation of films, TV series, phonograms, public performances, other creative activity, the results of which are protected by intellectual property laws.[8] Although the voice itself cannot be protected under current intellectual property law in isolation from the specific result of intellectual activity[9] or means of individualization, the development of legislation and judicial practice can gradually fill the existing gaps without radically changing the principles of intellectual rights protection.
One of the options for solving the problems of protection of voices at the current stage may be a comprehensive use of approaches based on additional protection of records of the created results of intellectual activity (performances), including in the training of "artificial intelligence" systems, and improvement of protection against unfair behavior when using the features inherent in the voices of famous personalities.
[1] https://sozd.duma.gov.ru/bill/718834-8
[2] Matveev A.G., Martyanova E.Yu. Civil-legal protection of human voice at its synthesis and subsequent use // Ex Jure. 2023. № 3. С. 118-131.
[3] Ivanova N.A., Petrova V.A. Individual human voice as an object of civil law // Actual problems of science and education: collection of materials of the III International Scientific and Practical Conference, Moscow, December 14, 2023. 2023. - С. 113.
[4] Bakhmetyev P.V. Protection of individual voice of a person: domestic and foreign experience // Law and Practice. 2023. № 4. С. 184-188.
[5] Definitions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of July 18, 2024, No. 1943-O, of December 27, 2023, No. 3428-O, of October 31, 2023, No. 2850-O, and others.
[6] Appellate determination of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan of April 24, 2024 in case No. 33-8221/2024; Appellate determination of the Yaroslavl Regional Court of July 1, 2019 in case No. 33-3821/2019; Appellate determination of the Chelyabinsk Regional Court of June 6, 2017 in case No. 11-7320/2017.
[7] Steshich E.S., Berdnikov A.E. Criminal-legal protection of the voice // Gaps in Russian legislation. 2024. Т. 17. № 6. С. 185-190.
[8] Morgunova E.A. Legal protection of the results of performing activity when using "motion capture" technologies // Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 11. Law. 2024. № 2. С. 177-192; Bando M.V. The right of a citizen to his own voice: some remarks to the draft law // Personal non-property rights and intangible benefits: challenges of the modern world : Proceedings of the II scientific-practical conference named after Prof. O.A. Krasavchikov. Krasavchikov, Ekaterinburg, October 18, 2024. 2024. С. 22-28.
[9] Watt D., Harrison P. S., Cabot-King L. Who owns your voice? Linguistic and legal perspectives on the relationship between vocal distinctiveness and the rights of the individual speaker // Interna- tional Journal of Speech, Language and the Law. 2020. Vol. 26, № 2. Pp. 137–180; Матвеев А.Г., Мартьянова Е.Ю. Гражданско-правовая охрана голоса человека при его синтезе и последующем использовании // Ex Jure. 2023. № 3. С. 123-124.
