Intellectual Property

Commercial use of AI-generated advertising and voices: permissions and rights to check

When generative AI is used to create advertising images or audio, the third-party rights associated with the materials and output need to be checked in addition to the service's statement that "commercial use is permitted". Where existing works or brands, or the likenesses or voices of real people, are involved, the rights and contracts that need to be checked depend on how they are used.

This guide sets out, for advertisers and production companies, whether copyright arises in the output and whether permission is required in relation to third-party rights. For audio, it separates the use of original recordings, the creation of voice models, and the release of synthesized speech, and explains the steps for checking the application of limitations on rights and contractual agreements.

Reviewed by Keishi Yoshikawa, Attorney at Law and Patent Attorney (Dai-Ichi Tokyo Bar Association)

Last updated: September 21, 2026

What to check before releasing AI-generated advertising or voices

The products being advertised, the media in which the advertising will be released, the period and territory of use, and plans for secondary use
The terms of the AI service and plan to be used, and the scope of warranties and indemnities concerning rights
The sources and rights holders of the images, recordings, scripts, and other materials to be input, and the permissions obtained
Whether likenesses or voices that evoke or identify a particular real person will be used
Agreements for each stage: the use of materials, training and model creation, and the synthesis and release of new statements
Records of checks of the output, the changes made by a person, and the allocation of responsibility with the production company

How we can helpOrganizing the materials, output and media planned for use / Examining legal issues concerning copyright, performances, likenesses and voices / Checking the application of limitations on rights and whether permission is required / Setting out the terms for using materials, creating voice models and releasing synthesized speech / Drafting and reviewing contracts with performers, production companies and others / Responding to allegations of infringement

Contact Form

Contents

1. Checking the scope of "commercial use is permitted" and the rights in the output
2. Checking the relationship with existing works, characters, and brands
3. Checking rights in real people's likenesses and voices and in the original recordings
4. Checking rights clearance and agreements for the use of materials, model creation, and the release of advertising
How we assist
Frequently asked questions

1. Checking the scope of "commercial use is permitted" and the rights in the output

"Commercial use is permitted" concerns the relationship with the provider

The fact that a service's terms permit commercial use of the output means only that the use is permitted in the relationship with the provider. Where the output contains expression from another person's work or evokes a real person's likeness or voice, that statement alone does not establish that third-party rights have also been cleared.

The matters to be checked are the prohibited uses specified in the terms, ownership of the rights in the output, and whether there are provisions on warranties or indemnities concerning rights and what they cover. Even where an indemnity provision is included, check the uses it covers, the conditions for its application, and the grounds for exclusion.

Whether copyright arises in the output depends on human involvement

The Copyright Act defines a work as "a creatively produced expression of thoughts or sentiments that falls within the literary, academic, artistic, or musical domain". The Agency for Cultural Affairs' "General Understanding on AI and Copyright in Japan" explains that material generated autonomously by AI does not qualify as a work, but that, where AI is found to have been used as a "tool" for a person to express thoughts or sentiments creatively, the material qualifies as a work and the AI user is the author.

Whether AI can be said to have been used as a "tool" is determined by whether the person had a "creative intent" and performed acts recognized as a "creative contribution". The same document states that detailed instructions specifying what can be considered creative expression are more likely to be considered as creative contributions, whereas instructions that merely set out ideas falling short of creative expression do not affect the assessment, however lengthy they are. It also states that a large number of attempts does not in itself affect the assessment, and that, where additions or modifications are made, those parts are generally recognized as copyrightable.

In advertising practice, if the output is not recognized as copyrightable, it becomes difficult to rely on copyright to stop third parties from using the same expression. On the other hand, a lack of copyrightability does not mean that third-party rights are not infringed. These are separate questions.

What the advertiser acquires is also checked separately

Even if copyrightability is recognized, the rights do not automatically belong to the advertiser. The fact that a production company has been commissioned and paid does not, by itself, mean that copyright has been transferred to the advertiser. For the output and the creative parts added by a person, ownership of the rights and the scope of the advertiser's permitted use are checked in the contract. Rights in scripts, music, photographs, and other materials also need to be checked separately from the consent of persons appearing in the production and performers.

2. Checking the relationship with existing works, characters, and brands

Similarity and dependence

The question of whether the output infringes copyright in an existing work arises where similarity (creative expression in common) and dependence are found, and the use falls outside the provisions limiting rights.

On dependence, the Agency for Cultural Affairs explains that, where an existing work was used for training during the development and training stages of generative AI, dependence is generally inferred even if the AI user was not aware of the existing work. It also states, however, that it may be possible to argue and prove that there is no dependence where the creative expression of the work used for training is not in a state in which it can be output at the generation and use stages.

Whether limitations on rights apply at the training stage and whether releasing the generated advertising is lawful are examined separately. Measures for a company whose website information is being collected and used for training are covered in the separate guide "AI training opt-outs for a company website: limits of crawl controls and legal measures".

Inputting reference images is also checked separately

The reproduction involved in inputting images or source audio into AI for reference is checked separately from the act of releasing the output. Where an image is input for the purpose of reproducing its creative expression, Article 30-4 of the Copyright Act may not apply, even if information analysis is involved. The Agency for Cultural Affairs also states that, when an existing work is input as an instruction for generation, it should be examined whether there is also a purpose of enjoyment.

Style and specific expression

Specifying the "style" of a particular creator or work is different from reproducing the specific expression of that work. Copyright protects expression, not ideas or style itself. Specifying a style can, however, result in the reproduction of specific expression, so the output itself needs to be checked.

Characters and brands

Where advertising uses existing characters or indications that evoke another company's logo or product name, the checks cover not only copyright but also trademark rights and the rules on indications of goods or business under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. Using an indication identical or similar to another person's indication of goods or business that is widely recognized among consumers, thereby causing confusion, and using an indication identical or similar to another person's famous indication of goods or business as one's own indication of goods or business are defined as unfair competition.

Keeping records of the checks

Keeping a record of the instructions given, the materials used as references, and the parts of the output modified by a person makes it easier to explain the position when issues are pointed out later. Where the work is outsourced to a production company, who will retain these records is also decided.

3. Checking rights in real people's likenesses and voices and in the original recordings

Likenesses and the right of publicity

On the unauthorized use of a real person's likeness or similar attributes, the Supreme Court has held that, where the use can be said to be solely for the purpose of using their power to attract customers, it infringes the right of publicity and is unlawful under tort law. This ruling concerns the use of photographs.

Separately, personality interests in not having one's likeness or similar attributes used without justification also come into question. These issues are not confined to celebrities.

Voices

The report of the "Study Group on Civil Liability for the Unauthorized Use of Likenesses, Voices, and Similar Attributes", published by the Ministry of Justice on August 7, 2026, states that there was no disagreement within the study group on including voices within the scope of protection of the right of publicity.

This is, however, the study group's account of its interpretation. It is neither a law creating a new right nor a judgment on the use of speech synthesized by AI. In an actual case, the particular manner of use is examined, including whether the likeness or similar attribute used can be identified as belonging to the person concerned and how its power to attract customers is being used.

On the other hand, the fact that the report is not legislation or a judicial precedent does not make contractual checks unnecessary. Clarifying with the parties concerned which uses are permitted at each of the three stages discussed below is a practical way to prepare.

Rights of performers and producers of phonograms

Where existing recordings are used, the rights in the works they contain, such as scripts, musical compositions, and lyrics, the performances, and the phonograms are checked separately. A performance means giving a dramatic performance of, dancing, giving a musical performance of, singing, delivering orally, declaiming, or otherwise performing a work (including similar acts that do not involve performing a work but have the nature of a performing art). Acting out lines, singing, oral delivery, and declamation are performances. By contrast, reading a work aloud to communicate it orally is treated separately as recitation, except where it constitutes a performance. The statutory definition of a performance turns on the nature of the act. It is therefore not determined solely by the fact that a voice actor or actor uttered the sounds, or solely by the fact that the reading has little intonation.

Performers have the rights to make sound and visual recordings of their performances and to make their performances available for transmission, but both are subject to exemptions. For a performance recorded in a cinematographic work with permission, the sound and visual recording rights do not apply, except to the recording of sound in a sound recording that allows the sound to be played independently. Separate exemptions from the right to make available for transmission are also provided for performances whose visuals have been recorded with permission and other cases. The form of the original recording, the act of use now contemplated, and the scope of the contract are checked separately. Extracting the audio does not necessarily bring both rights into question.

Producers of phonograms have the exclusive rights to reproduce their phonograms and to make them available for transmission. Even where audio does not constitute a performance, the rights of the producer of the phonogram may come into question in relation to the recording, so who first fixed the sounds and whether the rights have passed to another person are also checked. Fixations intended solely to be played alongside images are, however, excluded from the definition of a phonogram. Obtaining the performer's consent alone does not clear the rights of the producer of the phonogram as well.

Performers have the right to decide whether their names are indicated, and are also protected against alterations, cuts, or other modifications to their performances that harm their honor or reputation. The latter provision does not prohibit all modifications. It does not apply to modifications found to be unavoidable in light of the nature of the performance and the purpose and manner of its use, or to modifications found to be compatible with fair practices. It is not correct to conclude that "the right to integrity is automatically infringed because the person did not say those words".

Similarity of voices and use of the original performance

Similarity in the characteristics of a voice alone does not establish that the original performance was recorded or used. If the specific original performance has not been reproduced, infringement of the sound recording right cannot be established solely on the basis that the voices are similar.

On the other hand, the fact that new text is being spoken does not by itself establish that the original performance has not been used. The assessment is made after checking, in each case, how the original source audio was incorporated, how the synthesis works, and the extent to which a specific performance is reproduced in the output.

Issues concerning voices also extend beyond the use of their power to attract customers. Where statements that a person did not make are presented as that person's own, whether personality interests such as reputation and privacy come into question is also checked. This does not, however, mean that a comprehensive exclusive right in one's voice has been established for members of the general public as well, or that all unauthorized use is unlawful.

Indicating that something was generated by AI does not remove the need to check rights and agreements concerning the use of likenesses or voices.

4. Checking rights clearance and agreements for the use of materials, model creation, and the release of advertising

Checking in a set order

The checks follow four stages: (1) identify the materials and acts of use; (2) check whether rights extend to those acts; (3) check whether limitations on rights apply; and (4) determine the necessary permissions and contractual terms. This is not a checklist that requires permission at every stage.

Limitations on rights also extend to performances and phonograms

Article 102, paragraph (1) of the Copyright Act applies the provisions of Articles 30-2 through 32 and other provisions mutatis mutandis to the use of performances, phonograms, broadcasts, or cablecasts that are the subject of neighboring rights. These provisions include Article 30-4. This means that, even where recordings are used for AI training, permission from performers or producers of phonograms may be unnecessary if the requirements are met.

The description "training" does not, however, determine the position by itself. Whether there is a purpose of allowing the original performance to be enjoyed, the scope of use, and the effects on rights holders are checked. Article 102, paragraph (9), item (ii) also provides that, if a person uses a performance or other subject matter for the purpose of enjoying it personally or allowing others to enjoy it, using a copy of that subject matter made under Article 30-4 as applied mutatis mutandis, that person is deemed to have made a sound recording, visual recording, or reproduction. Even if a copy could lawfully be made for training, this does not mean that the copy can also be used to let people hear the original performance in an advertisement.

However, whether a trained model constitutes a copy of a performance or other subject matter in this context, and whether producing output with that model constitutes use for the purpose of allowing the original performance or other subject matter to be enjoyed, need to be examined separately. The checks concern which source audio was incorporated and how, whether copies of the original source audio are used in generation, the extent to which the original performance is reproduced in the output, and the purpose of that use. Similarity of voices alone does not determine the position.

Furthermore, even where the limitations on rights for information analysis discussed here apply, the moral rights of performers and contractual restrictions are checked separately.

Checks at each stage

Stage	Rights mainly in issue	Materials to check and scope of permission	Matters requiring examination in each case	Matters to agree in the contract
(1) Obtaining and using original recordings and materials from appearances	Performers' sound and visual recording rights, right to make available for transmission, and right of attribution / Rights of producers of phonograms to reproduce and make available for transmission / Copyright in scripts and musical compositions	The original source audio and form of recording, previous appearance and recording contracts, the party that granted permission and its authority, and the status of rights clearance for scripts and musical compositions	Whether it constitutes a performance and whether an exemption applies. The scope of previous contracts	Identification of the materials to be provided, the purpose of use, whether onward provision is permitted, and storage and return or deletion
(2) Training and creation of voice models	As above (Article 30-4 and other provisions apply mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 102, paragraph (1))	The scope of materials used for training, whether rights holders have given consent and its scope, and arrangements for storing and managing the model	Whether there is also a purpose of enjoyment. The extent to which storage and reuse of the model are permitted	Whether model creation is permitted, ownership and storage of the model created, whether it may be provided to third parties, the period of use, and handling afterward
(3) Synthesis and release of new statements	Moral rights of performers / Right of publicity and personality interests / Indications of goods or business under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act	The person's written consent and its scope, records of checks of the synthesized speech and completed advertising, and who approves release	Whether the person can be identified, how the power to attract customers is being used, and the extent to which the original performance is reproduced	The scope of statements that may be synthesized, media, period, territory, limits on modifications, review by the person concerned before release, and procedures for revocation

Matters to prioritize in the contract

In addition to media, period, and territory, priority is given to agreeing whether further training is permitted, provision of the model to third parties, the scope of statements to be synthesized, and use and deletion after the contract ends. A single consent from a person appearing in the production should not be assumed to clear everything from the use of materials to the release of new statements.

The contract also sets out who will check and approve the synthesized statements and completed advertising; how communications, decisions on stopping distribution or replacing the content, and the allocation of costs will be handled if a rights holder objects; and how the original materials, model, synthesized speech, and released advertising will each be handled after the contract ends.

Even where the production company says that "rights have been cleared", the checks concern what the permission relates to, who granted it, and its scope. The advertiser needs to be in a position to decide for itself whether release is permissible.

How we assist

We set out the materials, output, and media planned for use, and identify the rights that need to be checked
We examine copyright, the rights of performers and producers of phonograms, and interests concerning likenesses and voices in light of the manner of use
We set out separately the application of limitations on rights and whether permission is required
We set out contractual terms and draft and review contracts for the use of materials, the creation of voice models, and the release of synthesized speech
We set out how responsibility is allocated in relation to persons appearing in the production, production companies, and AI service providers
We support the response where allegations of infringement are made

Frequently asked questions

If a paid plan states that "commercial use is permitted", can the output be used in advertising as it is?

Not necessarily. "Commercial use is permitted" means that use is permitted in the relationship with the service provider. It does not mean that rights in expression from another person's work included in the output, or rights concerning a real person's likeness or voice, have also been cleared. After checking prohibited uses, ownership of rights, and the scope of warranty and indemnity provisions in the terms, the output itself is reviewed to examine its relationship with third-party rights.

Can a voice actor's voice be used to create audio for advertising a different product if permission was previously obtained for an appearance and recording in a commercial?

This depends on the scope of permission under the previous contract. Where permission for an appearance and recording covers use of that recording in a particular advertisement, it does not generally extend to creating a voice model and synthesizing new statements for an advertisement for a different product. Where only the audio is extracted from a performance recorded in an audiovisual work and used, the exemption provisions also come into question. It is recommended that a new agreement be reached, treating the use of materials, the creation of the model, and the release of synthesized speech separately.

Can performers' rights come into question even where text that the person has not spoken is synthesized?

It depends on the circumstances. Under the Copyright Act, sound recording means not only fixing sounds in a physical object but also making additional copies of that fixation. Thus, even where the text has not been spoken by the person concerned, performers' rights may come into question if source audio containing the original performance is reproduced during training or synthesis, or if the recordings are combined to create the output.

Similarity in the characteristics of a voice alone does not, however, establish that the original performance has been used. The production process is considered separately from the creation and release of the output, and the checks concern whether the original performance is used, how it is used, whether the use falls within the scope of permission, and whether limitations on rights or exemptions apply. Reproduction during training does not mean that the release of the output automatically constitutes use of the original performance as well.

The rights of producers of phonograms, the right of publicity and personality interests, and contractual restrictions are also checked separately from performers' rights.

Does a statement that "these likenesses and voices were generated by AI" make the person's permission unnecessary?

It does not make permission unnecessary. Even if AI generation is disclosed, questions concerning the right of publicity remain where the likeness or similar attribute can be identified as belonging to the person concerned and the use is assessed as making use of its power to attract customers. Whether the statement reduces viewers' or listeners' misconceptions and whether the use is assessed as making use of, among other things, the person's power to attract customers are separate questions. The relationship with rules on advertising representations requires a further, separate examination.

Are checks by the advertiser unnecessary if the production company says that "rights have been cleared"?

They cannot be said to be unnecessary. What the permission relates to, who granted it, and its scope need to be checked. In particular, the matters for which permission is required differ between the use of materials, the creation of voice models, and the release of synthesized speech. Even if the contract places an obligation to indemnify on the production company, this does not automatically bar claims by rights holders against the advertiser. It is recommended that the supporting materials be checked so that the advertiser can decide whether release is permissible.

Contact

Making an inquiry

Please tell us the outline of the situation, any notice you have received and its date, and any deadline you are working to.