Generative AI: Key Takeaways from “Civil Liability for Unauthorized Use of Human Likenesses and Voices Review Committee – Final Report: Interpretive Guidelines on Infringement by Generative AI of Publicity Rights, etc.” (Part 2)
Overview
This is Part 2 of the two-part newsletter series which examines the key takeaways from the “Civil Liability for Unauthorized Use of Human Likenesses and Voices Review Committee – Final Report: Interpretive Guidelines on Infringement by Generative AI of Publicity Rights, etc.”, published on August 7, 2026 by a review committee established under the Ministry of Justice of Japan. Although the Report has no legally binding force, it offers a detailed analysis, structured around seven hypothetical cases, of when infringement of publicity rights and of the right not to have one's likeness, etc. used without due cause is established in the context of generative AI, and represents an important reference point in practice navigating this rapidly evolving area.
This Part 2 of this newsletter series focuses on the right not to have one's likeness, etc. used without due cause. Building on the Japanese Supreme Court judgment in 2005, the Report explains how infringement of this right can arise by first identifying, for each situation, the rights and interests that are substantively protected, such as rights to honor, privacy, and the tranquility of one's private life, and then assessing, through a comprehensive weighing of all relevant circumstances, whether the usage of the likeness, etc. exceeds the limits of what must be tolerated in the daily life of a social community. This framework is applied to generative AI outputs, including sexual images and audio and usage that lacks any profit-making purpose.
The Report confirms that this right extends to a person's voice, and it addresses features specific to generative AI, including likenesses generated by coincidence in circumstances where no intent to generate the likeness or negligence is found to exist, and the unauthorized use of a likeness after death, for which surviving family members may assert infringement in some situations.
On remedies, the Report confirms that both damages and injunctive relief are available for breaches of both publicity rights and the right not to have one's likeness, etc. used without due cause, while highlighting the practical difficulty of proving that a voice or an image would, on its own, be recognized as that of the person concerned.
View original article here.
Authors:
Kenji Tosaki (Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu, Partner)
Hideyuki Otsuki (Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu)
Jun Ihara (Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu)
Yumi Tominaga (Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu)