最新资讯
dev.to 用 Switch 构建 AI 投资委员会:多空研究员 Agent 协作 bloomberg.com 微软正结束向甲骨文租用 AI 云算力的协议 the-decoder.com Perplexity 推出常驻 AI Agent“Teammates” dev.to osFoundry的Loop和Graph是什么,何时该用哪个? dev.to 限制上下文而非限制评审:面向开源补丁的字节预算证据包 dev.to 约束自主智能体:用 GKE Agent Sandbox 实现亚秒级零信任执行 dev.to 实测:给 Claude Code 十个翻译工具,三次运行中有一次完全不用 unite.ai Ramp 数据:企业 AI token 用量增速超过支出增速 pub.towardsai.net AI 生成的 ICLR 评审对被拒论文更宽松:如何压力测试你的 rebuttal blogs.nvidia.com NVIDIA 开源工具如何助力研究者构建下一代 6G 网络 wired.com AI 公司正积极收购企业工作文件与邮件用于模型训练 wechat 网友用AI搓出来的“App”,可以直接在小红书玩起来了?
多元动态
登录 注册
算力商业 www.aibase.com ·

米哈游《原神》角色声音被仿冒获赔75万元:上海首例 AI 声音仿冒案宣判

原文 我的收藏

上海浦东新区人民法院对上海首例 AI 声音仿冒及不正当竞争案作出判决。米哈游2025年发现某 AI 变声软件提供63个《原神》角色语音包并大量使用角色形象,遂起诉运营方。被告辩称变声效果因人而异、声音权益应归配音演员,但庭审中承认未经许可使用《原神》角色一分钟音频混合其他素材训练其 AI 变声模型。声纹司法鉴定认定测试音频与原角色声音“倾向于识别为同一”。法院认为游戏角色声音特征由其预设属性决定、具有识别商品来源功能,构成商业标识,判令被告立即停止不正当竞争并赔偿75万元。此前2026年9月7日最高法已发布涉人工智能案件审理意见。

AI推荐理由 上海浦东法院对首例 AI 声音仿冒及不正当竞争案作出判决,被告未经许可使用《原神》角色一分钟音频训练 AI 变声模型,声纹鉴定认定测试音频与原角色声音“倾向于识别为同一”,判赔75万元。该案结合最高法2026年9月7日发布的涉人工智能司法意见,对 AI 训练数据授权、声音权益与游戏角色商业标识保护有判例参考价值;但为媒体转述,未提供判决书原文,具体认定细节需以法院文书为准。

70

正文

Mihoyo's 'Genshin Impact' Character Voice Cloned and Compensation of 750,000 Yuan: Shanghai's First AI Voice Impersonation Case Ruled AIbase基地 Published inAI News · 5 min read · Sep 10, 2026 6 According to the official account of the program "Case Focus," the Pudong New Area People's Court of Shanghai recently ruled on the first case involving AI voice impersonation and unfair competition in Shanghai. In 2025, miHoYo discovered that an AI voice-changing software provided 63 voice resource packages of characters from "Genshin Impact," allowing users to pay for voice changes. At the same time, the software also extensively used images of characters from "Genshin Impact." miHoYo then filed a lawsuit against the operator of the software, claiming that the voice-changing service would cause confusion in auditory perception—"regardless of what is said, it would be converted into the specific voice and tone of a particular character." "Tend to identify as the same" in judicial appraisal; defendant admits unauthorized training The defendant argued that the voice-changing service was a result of AI large model training, and the voice effect varied from person to person. Furthermore, the voice rights belonged to the voice actors, who should be the ones to claim them. However, the voiceprint judicial appraisal provided a key conclusion: the test audio of "Genshin Impact" characters in the AI voice-changing software was "tended to identify as the same" with the original voice of the game characters. More importantly, the defendant admitted during the trial that they had used one-minute audio of "Genshin Impact" characters without permission, mixed with other sound materials, to train their own AI voice-changing model. Judge Xu Hongtao from the Intellectual Property Trial Division of the Pudong People's Court explained: "In the game, the voice characteristics of a character are more determined by specific elements such as the character's preset attributes and skills, rather than being left to the personalized performance of the voice actor." In other words, the voice characteristics of a game character are determined by its preset attributes and have the function of identifying the source of goods—the so-called "commercial identifier." The Pudong People's Court ultimately ruled that the defendant must immediately stop the unfair competition behavior and compensate the plaintiff 750,000 yuan. Notably, on September 7, 2026, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Opinions on Legally Adjudicating Cases Involving Artificial Intelligence," which is the first judicial regulation document on artificial intelligence issued by the country's highest judicial authority. The "Opinions" stated that unless otherwise stipulated by law, if someone uses a natural person's voice as training material without the natural person's consent, imitates their voice tone, intonation, and speaking style to generate synthetic voices that can identify the natural person, the court will support the natural person's claim of infringement of their voice rights. This means that AI stealing voices is no longer in a legal gray area. AIvoicechangersoftwareGenshinImpactcharacterunfaircompetitionvoiceprintforensicidentification This article is from AIbase Daily Scan to view Welcome to the [AI Daily] column! This is your daily guide to exploring the world of artificial intelligence. Every day, we present you with hot topics in the AI field, focusing on developers, helping you understand technical trends, and learning about innovative AI product applications. —— Created by the AIbase Daily Team © Copyright AIbase Base 2024, Click to View Source -

来源报道 · 1 篇 · 以下链接均前往原始媒体

← 返回精选动态 原文

更多内容