With the rise of generative AI, technology can now replicate a person\u2019s image, voice, expressions, and even mannerisms with striking accuracy\u2014creating digital avatars or replicas that are often indistinguishable from real life.<\/p>\n
On July 10, 2025, Judge Paul Oetken declined to dismiss claims under New York\u2019s Right of Publicity statute relating to allegations of AI voice duplication. Lehrman v. Lovo, Inc.<\/em>, 2025 WL 1902547 (S.D.N.Y. 2025).<\/p>\n Voice actors Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage alleged that Lovo, Inc.\u2014a company specializing in AI-generated voice cloning\u2014created and commercialized unauthorized digital replicas of their voices. While Judge Oetken dismissed their Lanham Act claim, the Court sustained their claims including violations of New York Civil Rights Law and state consumer protection laws.<\/p>\n \u201cLehrman and Sage allege that they first learned that their voices had been used in unanticipated ways when they listened to an episode of the Deadline Strike Talk<\/em> podcast narrated in part by an artificial voice \u2026 generated using \u201ca paid subscription to Lovo.\u201d Id. <\/em>Judge Oetken cites the certifications that Lovo \u201chad been marketing the clone of his voice as part of its subscription service under the stage name \u2018Kyle Snow\u2019\u00a0 and that it was this \u2018Kyle Snow\u2019 voice that he had heard on the podcast\u201d Id.\u00a0 <\/em>Lovo promoted Kyle Snow as \u201c \u2018an ideal male voice generator … for all kinds of content\u2019 due to his \u2018upbeat tone and slightly faster talking speed\u2019.\u201d In his decision, Judge Oetken found that \u201cwhen confronted with new technologies, \u201c[t]he appropriate course … is to employ the theory of statutory construction that general terms encompass future developments and technological advancements\u201d (citation omitted). Here, as in the visual context, construing the Civil Rights Law to exclude digital clones would frustrate the statutory purpose, and, for all practical purposes, enable commercial entities to appropriate individuals\u2019 identities without restraint. In fact, allowing such appropriation by means of AI might be even more pernicious, because, allegedly, a functioning voice clone capable of saying anything, forever, can be created using a small snippet of original audio\u201d Lehrman v. Lovo, supra at <\/em>*22.<\/p>\n This decision affirms that individuals\u2019 likenesses\u2014including their image and<\/em> voices\u2014remain safeguarded even in a world where technology can mimic them almost exactly.<\/p>\n Judge Oetken also allowed Plaintiffs\u2019 state consumer protection claims to proceed under New York General Business Law \u00a7\u00a7 349 and 350, finding that \u201cPlaintiffs adequately alleged that Lovo misrepresented the scope of the \u201ccommercial rights\u201d that it promised to provide to its subscribers, thereby making its offerings appear more attractive\u201d Lehrman v. Lovo, supra at at *25.<\/em> \u201cA claim is \u201cmaterially misleading\u201d for state-law purposes if it is objectively \u201clikely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances\u2026\u00a0Lovo’s allegedly false claims about commercial rights constitute such misleading conduct\u201d Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n Generative AI raises fundamental questions about ownership, identity, and consent in the digital age. We will be watching Lehrman v. Lovo<\/em> and other courts nationwide as they address identity rights and unauthorized digital replication.<\/p>\n By: John P. Bostany and Brittany K. Singh With the rise of generative AI, technology can now replicate a person\u2019s image, voice, expressions, and even mannerisms with striking accuracy\u2014creating digital avatars or replicas that are often indistinguishable from real life. On July 10, 2025, Judge Paul Oetken declined to dismiss claims under New York\u2019s Right of Publicity statute relating to allegations of AI […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5899","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-fashion-law-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fashionlawzone.com\/fashionlawzone\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5899","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fashionlawzone.com\/fashionlawzone\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fashionlawzone.com\/fashionlawzone\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fashionlawzone.com\/fashionlawzone\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fashionlawzone.com\/fashionlawzone\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5899"}],"version-history":[{"count":31,"href":"https:\/\/fashionlawzone.com\/fashionlawzone\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5899\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6043,"href":"https:\/\/fashionlawzone.com\/fashionlawzone\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5899\/revisions\/6043"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fashionlawzone.com\/fashionlawzone\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5899"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fashionlawzone.com\/fashionlawzone\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5899"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fashionlawzone.com\/fashionlawzone\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5899"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nLehrman v. Lovo, supra at *3. \u201c<\/em>Sage discovered that Lovo had created a clone of her voice named \u2018Sally Coleman\u2019 that was \u2026 marketed \u2026 using \u2018side-by-side\u2019 comparisons of Sage’s original audio recordings\u2014the ones she provided via Fiverr\u2014and the \u2018cloned version of her voice.\u2019
\nId.<\/em><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>The Bostany Law Firm PLLC<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"