Protection Of Voice Actor’s Work By Copyright

India is only the fourteenth largest entertainment and media market in the world, with industry revenues contributing roughly one percent to its gross domestic product. Voice-over artists have a vital part in box office success because they significantly influence the emotional synchronisation between the audience and the visuals displayed. Even if these artists play a crucial role in attaining the numbers, they are typically under-recognized and under-compensated, whilst the actors and other prominent artists make a fortune from the films. It should be taken into account how voices are used and re-used across multiple mediums to establish affinity with the visuals, despite the fact that the community of voice actors is underestimated for their substantial contributions.

Although these voice actors play a crucial role, it is debatable whether they should be called a personality or performance. Personality or Performer rights are not formally recognised by law in India. Due to the increasing amount of celebrity endorsements and commercialization, this viewpoint has acquired significance in the modern day. Celebrity rights can be protected either as a right to privacy or as the property of a persona.

Voice Artist – Performer?

A performer is any individual who delivers a live visual or an acoustic presentation. There is no rigorous definition of a performer. As per recent case law, Neha Bhasin v. Anand Raj Anand, the High Court of Delhi held that a live presentation in a studio is also a performance even when it may be without an audience. As per this logic, it can be deduced that a voice actor is also a performer even though the performance is delivered in the studio. A statement to such effect can be found in Rule 68(4) of the Copyright Rules, 2013.

In the case of Experience Hendrix LLC v. Purple Haze records Ltd., it was held that one could protect his voice through the performance, but the voice in isolation isn’t likely to be protected. In the case of Midler v. Ford Motor Co., Bette Midler, the voice actor, asserted her rights, which were imitated in the Ford advert. The Court of Appeal held that a voice is not copyrightable per se in the copyright act, but common law rights could be enforced since a voice is as distinctive as one’s face.

Performers often do not own the copyright in the recordings on which they appear. They might not even have a relationship with the copyright owner that allows them to share in any money the copyright generates. However, a line can be drawn to assert the fact that a voice may not necessarily be protected, but the underlying work, which includes the recording of that voice, can be protected.

Trademark & Patents for Voice Actors

A mark may be registered as a trademark if it can be visually depicted to distinguish one party’s goods from those of another. Speaking of sounds, it may be tough to fixate and reproduce them graphically because a clear and accurate representation may be difficult to obtain. However, as governments began to recognise and accept MP3 recordings of various works, a number of voices and noises were effectively registered.

Sounds may be registered in the United States if they evoke an association with particular goods and services in the mind of the buyer. Therefore, in order to qualify for registration, the voiceover must be distinct and definitive. Under the Trademark Law, a jingle in a particular commercial that is sung in a distinguishable style or a phrase may be protected. In general, though, registering a voice as a trademark is not something the law permits.

A voice actor cannot be protected by the Patent Law. In the United States, however, certain inventions using sound as a primary component have been protected. Despite the fact that patents do not provide a clear method for protecting a voice, they provide some intriguing applications in relation to voices in general. In a word, a patent is an exclusive legal right issued by the government for an invention that is novel, imaginative, and industrially applicable.

A patent owner is granted the exclusive right to prohibit others from creating, utilising, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented process or product(s). According to the writer’s interpretation of the patent, the module absorbs a voice, analyses it for specific features, and modulates it when utilised to imitate the voice it has been listening to. It is very evident that patents cannot protect a person’s voice; nevertheless, as AI and technology improve and develop, they will be at the forefront of protecting systems that may one day mimic sounds and voices.

Requirement of Ordinary Observer Test

The “ordinary observer” test was adopted by the court in R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, where it was held that if the reader, audience, viewer, or observer, after reading or viewing both works, is indisputably & undeniably of the opinion that the subjected work appears to be a copy of the original, then there has been an infringement of copyright. This criterion was first recognised in the United States in the case Daly v. Palmer.

In essence, the test states that violation can be shown if a licence for the identical work has not been obtained and an ordinary viewer decides from a comparison that the works are comparable. R.G. Anand emphasised further that the parties’ intent to imitate must be established by examining not just the tangible similarities but also the wide dissimilarities. It also considered that if the topic is the same but the presentation is different, the subsequent work is “totally fresh” and no infringement can be established. In Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Zee Telefilm, the courts stated that the infringement must be substantial, and to evaluate this, the accused portions must be evaluated separately and then as a whole to determine the degree of resemblance. In addition, they ruled that the determination of substantial infringement must be based on the quality of the infringement rather than its quantity.

These voice performers need copyright protection for their voices, and in order to get it, the ordinary observer test needs to be used. In order to determine whether there has been substantial infringement, the asserted elements must be examined both alone and collectively to establish any similarities. Furthermore, they decided that the nature, rather than the extent, of an infringement should be taken into account when deciding whether or not there has been a serious infringement.

CONCLUSION

For their work to be protected from others who would plagiarise it and publish it several times without permission or payment, voice actors require legal protection and equitable reliefs. To ensure this, “Voice Actors” must be explicitly recognised as performers under the Copyright Law. In order to ensure copyright protection in each and every instance, it is necessary to use the ordinary observer test in these situations. The community of voice actors must be educated and made aware of their rights and how to exercise them without falling into the sticky traps of private petty agreements. Academicians and legal professionals should examine the topic in order to establish a suitable method for addressing unknown concerns in the relevant field of law and ensuring ethical behaviour and business practises.

Author: Saransh Khandelwal  – a student at National Law University (Jodhpur),  in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at IIPRD.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

5 × five =

Archives

  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010