Google accused of stealing David Green's voice for NotebookLM

Veteran U.S. broadcaster David Greene sued Google alleging that the voice used in its AI podcast feature in NotebookLM closely imitates his own without permission, raising concerns about the misuse of human voices by the technology firm. What happened Longtime NPR host David Greene sued Google in Santa Clara County, California, claiming that the male AI voice used in NotebookLM is an unauthorised clone of his own, and that the tech company used his vocal characteristics to train the AI without permission or compensation, giving users the ability to generate speech that sounds like him , including potentially saying things he would never endorse. Greene reported being "freaked out" after friends and colleagues asked if he had licenced his voice to the app, noting that the AI perfectly mimicked his unique rhythm, intonation, and even his characteristic verbal tics. Beyond the direct impact on Greene, the incident created a broader concern for creators: the possibility that an AI could be empowered to "speak" for them, potentially saying things they would never say, thereby damaging their public standing and future commercial opportunities. Why it happened The lawsuit stems from how modern generative AI systems are created: they are trained on massive datasets of human speech and text to produce natural-sounding audio, without clear consent mechanisms from individuals whose voices might be used or approximated. Google denies any wrongdoing, stating that the voice in question was created by a paid professional actor and not directly based on Greene’s voice. Tech and legal analysts note that even without exact copying of a person’s recordings, an AI voice that’s so similar it could deceive listeners can trigger legal claims around likeness, rights of publicity, and unfair competition. What it means For society: It signals a shift where human "craft"—such as a journalist’s delivery—can be commodified into a reusable digital asset without the creator's involvement. For policymakers: The case pressures legislators to define whether a "voice" can be protected like a trademark. It follows similar controversies and suggests that existing copyright laws are insufficient to protect the "sonic identity" of individuals. System 🤖 Audio Overview Developer: Google Country: USA Sector: Media/entertainment/sports/arts Purpose: Create audio conversation Technology: Speech-to-text; Text-to-speech Issue: Accountability; Appropropriation; Autonomy; Transparency Regulation ⚖️ California Civil Code Section 3344 (Right of Publicity) Legal, regulatory 👩🏼‍⚖️ Greene v. Google

Date it happened

2024-01-01

Organisation involved

Google

Product, system or model

Audio Overview

This is a record of what was reported, not a finding that anyone broke the law. If it names your organisation and you believe it is wrong, the corrections process is free and open to everyone.