Comprehensive analysis of legal issues surrounding neural network-based voice generation technologies, highlighting implications for regulation.
Neural networks (NN) are playing an increasingly important role in various fields of modern technology, and one of their most promising applications is human voice generation. Understanding the NN principles in this context not only reveals the technological side of the issue, but also allows us to assess the possibilities, limitations and risks of using this innovation, an understanding of which is necessary for further legal regulation of this area of relations. The purpose of the study is a comprehensive analysis of the legal problems associated with the use of human voices generated by NN in various public relations. To achieve this goal, the following tasks were set: to define the concept and NN principles in the context of speech synthesis; to illustrate the history of the development of human voice synthesis technologies; to reveal the legal basis for regulating voice generation technologies in Russia and abroad; to analyze judicial practice in disputes related to the protection of human voice; to determine the prospects for the legal regulation of public relations related to the human voices generation by NN. The work used general scientific (analysis and synthesis, forecasting method, induction and deduction) and special scientific (formal legal, comparative legal) methods that allowed us to: assess the dynamics and features of the development of judicial practice; study the specifics of the formation and application of legal norms in various national legal systems; identify existing gaps in law and shortcomings in the mechanisms of legal regulation in relation to technologies that allow generating a human voice. Results. The paper summarizes and examines a number of problematic issues related to the legal regulation of human voices generated using NN in Russia, the European Union, the United States, China and other countries, and, based on the analysis, specific areas for improving domestic legislation are presented.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aleksandr Kiselev (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: