Summary
A Nanfang Metropolis Daily report links a Shanghai voice-rights judgment to an earlier dispute over the AI-assisted animated film Nie Xiaoqian. The film was removed after a character’s voice was alleged to closely resemble actor Yang Tianxiang. Director Sun Chenxi said an external model connected to his production platform generated the voice and that he had mistakenly assumed buying the AI product included rights to all generated material. He later removed the disputed video and said he would use human dubbing. Voice company 729 Voice Studio said many tools scrape or collect samples without paying rights holders and urged traceable licensing. The report also describes the Shanghai court’s award of 50,000 yuan in a separate case involving a synthesized voice used in promotion.
Hana’s perspective
For animation and film teams, the practical lesson is simple: paying for an AI tool does not prove that its training material or generated voice is licensed. Producers need a chain of title for synthetic performances, including consent, permitted uses and retention terms. The director’s response also shows that replacing a disputed track after release is not a substitute for checking provenance before distribution. Voice actors should not have to reverse-engineer a model to prove that a recognizable professional asset was taken.
Are you a writer with a great story? We'd love to hear from you: APPLY HERE