The terms for using an actor's face and voice

🕰️Use with consent#

De-aging, so actors play their own younger selves

De-aging is a technique that erases signs of aging so actors can play their younger selves. The Hankyoreh named it one of the most common uses of AI in video production. The two cases below have one thing in common: the actor took part in the filming and accepted the result.

"Big Bet" (2023)#

Choi Min-sik's face from his 30s, put back on

In the 2023 Disney+ series "Big Bet" (Korean title Casino), Choi Min-sik played the protagonist Cha Mu-sik in his 30s, and then his face from films he made in his 30s was overlaid. The actor performed the part himself, and his own earlier face was reused.

"Scandal" (2026)#

Son Ye-jin's teenage years, with her own face

The Netflix series "Scandal", released in September 2026, used de-aging to show the teenage years of the character played by Son Ye-jin. In an interview on September 29, Son said that if she plays her teens and twenties as herself, viewers can become far more immersed.

🚫Use without consent#

Faces and voices copied without the person knowing

Cases where the same technology is used without the person's consent keep appearing. People make films with the face of an actor who never appeared in them, or ads with someone else's face and voice. In August, TV personality Lee Ji-hye said publicly that fake ads were circulating that used AI videos copying her face and voice to sell products.

The short film "The Meter Reader"#

Yeom Hye-ran, who never appeared in it

The short film "The Meter Reader" (Geomchimwon), released on YouTube in March 2026, used AI to make a character's face, voice and expressions look like actress Yeom Hye-ran. Yeom never appeared in it, and neither she nor her agency consented. The film was eventually taken down from YouTube.

Fan-made mashup dramas#

Misuse that happens even without money involved

A manager at a talent management company told The Hankyoreh that fans sometimes have fun making romance dramas by combining the actors they want, and that it is hard for agencies to find each one and take legal action. In other words, misuse does not always happen for profit.

🎙️Japan's first ruling#

The voice, too, is protected by the right of publicity

The plaintiff in the Tokyo District Court case is voice actor Kenjiro Tsuda, known for anime such as "Jujutsu Kaisen". From July 2024 to September 2025, a TikTok account posted 188 urban legend videos with AI narration resembling Tsuda's voice. The account had about 210,000 followers. In November 2025, Tsuda's side sued TikTok's operator, demanding that the videos be removed.

The presiding judge's holding#

The voice is a symbol of personality, like a likeness

Presiding Judge Aya Takahashi held that "a person's voice, like their likeness, is a symbol of the individual's personality." The court found that when a performer's voice has customer-drawing power that drives product sales and someone uses it without permission solely to exploit that power, it infringes the right of publicity.

Removal claim dismissed#

The account and videos were already gone

The court, however, dismissed the removal claim. The poster had deleted the account on May 29, 2026, and the video data disappeared from the operator's servers on June 28. TikTok countered that the voice in question was "a generic male voice" and that the poster had trained the AI on a friend's voice. The Mainichi Shimbun and others reported that the poster earned 500,000 to 750,000 yen a month in view-based payouts.

Ministry of Justice guidance (August 7)#

Impersonation that does not mislead viewers is not infringement

Before the ruling, on August 7, 2026, Japan's Ministry of Justice published a report with interpretive guidance that the voice falls within the right of publicity. It said that making audio that imitates a popular voice actor with generative AI and earning money from social media videos may infringe that right. It concluded that impersonation is not infringement unless it hides that it is an imitation and leads viewers to mistake it for the real person.

📜Subitem (ta) of Korea's Unfair Competition Prevention Act#

The word "voice" is already in the text

A December 7, 2021 amendment to Korea's Unfair Competition Prevention Act added Subitem (ta) to Article 2, Item 1, and it took effect on June 8, 2022. It defines as unfair competition the use of another person's name, likeness, voice, signature and similar attributes without permission in a way that infringes that person's economic interests. The word "voice" is already in the text.

Digital DNA registration#

Recording faces and movement with consent

On September 10, 2026, the Korea Broadcasting Actors Union signed an agreement with the Korea Digital DNA Center (KDDC) on digital DNA registration. The system records and manages an actor's face, body, expressions and movement based on the actor's prior consent. The union explained that in a dispute, what matters are records showing whose data it is, when and how it was made, and how far the person allowed its use.

Collective bargaining#

Most performers have little bargaining power

The union is also discussing AI-related protections for performers in collective bargaining with Korean content companies. A union official said that apart from a few, most performers find it hard to have bargaining power in contracts with production companies or casting directors.

🤖Actors who are not human#

Not whose face, but whose place

In Hollywood, the AI actor Tilly Norwood, cast in a comedy film that Particle6 is making, drew reactions that she cannot be accepted as an actor and criticism that she will take away jobs. In a CNN interview in September, Norwood said she is not the enemy (of humans), but she did not handle improvised acting directions well. This case asks not whose face is used, but what fills the place of human actors.

❓What is still unsettled#

The gaps left by the ruling and the law

A ruling, a statute and a registration system now exist, but detailed standards for what counts as infringement are not yet in place. Japan's ruling stayed at the level of general principle, Korea's clause requires that the person be widely known and that the use be for business, and digital DNA registration leaves evidence rather than creating new rights.

How similar is too similar#

The gap left by the Tokyo court

The Tokyo District Court's finding is a general principle. The ruling did not settle how closely a voice must resemble someone's to infringe. In dismissing the removal claim, the court also did not decide whether these particular videos actually infringed any rights.

"Widely known" and "for business"#

Where unknown actors and fan videos fit

Korea's clause requires that the person be "widely known in Korea" and that the use be "for one's own business," and also that it be done in a way contrary to fair commercial practices. The text alone does not answer whether the face of an unknown actor or a video fans made for fun falls within it.

Registration only leaves evidence#

No new rights come with it

Digital DNA registration is a way to leave evidence, not a way to create new rights. A union official also drew a line, saying that registering does not automatically create new legal rights or automatically establish in a dispute that the person is who they say they are.