In this specific case, a YouTuber had published two clips in which an artificially generated voice was used that sounded like the famous German dubbing voice of Bruce Willis - Manfred Lehmann. The videos contained satirical comments on political topics, but also served to promote an online store. There was no indication that this was not Lehmann's real voice, but rather an artificially generated recording, nor did Lehmann give his consent. This gave many viewers the impression that the well-known dubbing actor had recorded the content himself or supported the project.
The regional court then awarded Lehmann a fictitious license fee totaling €4,000 (€2,000 per video). In addition, the YouTuber must reimburse the legal fees. The court thus made it clear that even artificially generated voices are subject to the protection of general personal rights. Use without consent – especially for commercial purposes – is not permitted. The ruling is groundbreaking for the entire industry.
Consequences for voice artists, creators, and customers
For voice artists, this means that their voice - whether recorded or artificially reproduced - remains a protected personal characteristic. Their consent is mandatory if third parties wish to use or imitate their voice.
For clients and customers, it creates legal certainty, but also makes it clear that anyone working with voices must clarify usage rights clearly. The use of AI voices without consent can have legal and financial consequences.
The ruling thus sends a clear signal: technological progress does not change the fact that the creative work and identity of voice actors must be respected. If you want to use artificial voices in a legally compliant and responsible manner, visit our AI voice information page.
German AI voice ruling sends a strong signal: Use of the “Bruce Willis voice” violates personal rights
The Berlin Regional Court (LG) II has ruled that the misuse of an AI voice that sounded deceptively similar to the voice of dubbing actor Manfred Lehmann violated his personal rights (judgment of August 20, 2025, ref. 2 O 202/24).
