Voices in Translation: Dubbing, AI, and the Battle for Creative Rights
Written by Amanda Strocko | March 26, 2026
The global streaming boom has turned dubbing into a core strategy for platforms like Netflix and Disney, which rely on multilingual audio to reach international audiences and meet accessibility expectations (Reznick, 2021). As non-English hits such as Squid Game climbed global charts, the stakes of translation and dubbing increased, exposing how voice performances and translated scripts shape what viewers actually perceive as the “original” work (Reznick, 2021). At the same time, generative AI has introduced new ways to replicate voices across languages without continual human involvement, raising fresh legal and ethical questions about authorship, consent, and compensation (Chuks-Okeke et al., 2023; Law Gratis, 2026). Together, these developments force intellectual property law to confront how it governs translation, derivative works, and ownership in an increasingly globalized audiovisual ecosystem (Law Gratis, 2026; Farkas, 2019).
Under U.S. copyright law, dubbing typically qualifies as a derivative work because it recasts a preexisting audiovisual work into another language and may adjust dialogue to match cultural context or lip movements (Farkas, 2019). Derivative works are defined as creations “based upon one or more preexisting works,” explicitly including translations among other forms of adaptation (Farkas, 2019). In practice, this means the original rightsholder—often a studio or production company—holds the exclusive right to authorize dubbed versions, whether human-performed or AI-generated (Farkas, 2019). Yet the dubbed script and performance can also contain protectable creative contributions from translators, dubbing directors, and voice actors, whose rights are usually governed more by contracts and union agreements than by bright-line statutory rules (Chuks-Okeke et al., 2023; Law Gratis, 2026).
The Squid Game controversy in 2021 illustrated how translation choices can alter meaning and complicate questions of authorship. Korean-fluent commentators argued that some English subtitles and dub lines flattened social critique and diluted nuances around class and gender, leaving Anglophone audiences with a softened version of the show’s political edge (Reznick, 2021). Comedian Youngmi Mayer and others documented how key lines lost tone and specificity in translation, suggesting that the English dub conveyed a subtly different narrative voice (Reznick, 2021). While these concerns did not lead to litigation, they highlighted a gap between the law’s focus on authorization and the creative reality in which translators and dubbing actors effectively co-author how international viewers experience a work (Law Gratis, 2026; Farkas, 2019).
The law offers some tools to police harmful or unauthorized changes, but they are imperfect. Moral rights in many jurisdictions allow authors to object to derogatory modifications that harm their honor or reputation, which could, in theory, include egregiously misleading dubs (Law Gratis, 2026). Derivative work doctrine clearly treats unauthorized language adaptations as infringing, even if they are artistically compelling (Law Gratis, 2026; Farkas, 2019). However, most dubbing for major streamers occurs under broad licenses negotiated by studios, leaving individual translators and performers with limited leverage over how their creative contributions are credited, reused, or modified (Chuks-Okeke et al., 2023; Law Gratis, 2026).
AI-enhanced dubbing intensifies these concerns. Legal analysis notes that AI-generated dubbed tracks still rely on the underlying copyrighted work and therefore require authorization as derivative works (Law Gratis, 2026). At the same time, cloning or closely mimicking a recognizable actor’s voice can implicate rights of publicity and moral rights, especially when a performer’s distinctive “voice personality” is replicated without consent (Chuks-Okeke et al., 2023; Law Gratis, 2026). Commentators warn that AI dubbing raises at least three intertwined risks: unlicensed derivative works, unauthorized exploitation of performers’ voices, and uncertainty over whether AI outputs qualify for copyright protection absent significant human input (Chuks-Okeke et al., 2023; Law Gratis, 2026).
Labor negotiations have become a key arena for regulating these risks. During recent SAG-AFTRA negotiations, including the 2024–2025 video game strike, performers emphasized that companies could treat recorded performances as raw data to train AI systems, enabling indefinite reuse without new bargaining (Wikipedia, 2024). Reports indicate that the deal ending the strike included stronger consent and disclosure provisions for AI-generated replicas and recognized performers’ ability to limit certain uses (Richardson, 2025). Although these agreements emerged in the game industry, they are highly relevant to streaming and dubbing, where similar technologies can replicate voices across languages at scale (Richardson, 2025; Wikipedia, 2024).
Going forward, a more balanced framework would treat dubbed performances as creative contributions deserving protection while preserving global access. Scholars and practitioners have proposed stronger contract-based control over voice and likeness, ensuring fresh consent and compensation for AI replication or cross-language reuse (Chuks-Okeke et al., 2023; Law Gratis, 2026). Others advocate for enhanced moral rights or contractual “integrity” clauses that limit how far translations can stray from core themes without author approval (Law Gratis, 2026). Elevating translators and dubbing actors through screen credits, residual structures, and advisory roles would also recognize that they are not merely technicians but key co-creators of globalized narratives (Chuks-Okeke et al., 2023; Law Gratis, 2026).
References
Chuks-Okeke, E., Adetunji, A., & Leong, B. (2023, December 6). Voice actors and Generative AI: Legal challenges and emerging protections. IAPP. https://iapp.org/news/a/voice-actors-and-generative-ai-legal-challenges-and-emerging-protections
Copyright challenges in AI-enhanced film dubbing. Law Gratis. (2026, February 21). http://lawgratis.com/blog-detail/copyright-challenges-in-ai-enhanced-film-dubbing
Farkas, B. (2019, August 12). Derivative works under U.S. Copyright Law. Nolo. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/derivative-works-under-u-s-copyright-law.html
Reznick, J. (2021, November 15). What the Squid Game Translation Controversy Teaches Us. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-squid-game-translation-controversy-teaches-us-jen-reznick/
Richardson, T. (2025, July 10). Video game actors’ strike officially ends after ai deal. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ykx117keqo
Wikimedia Foundation. (2026, March 10). 2024–2025 SAG-AFTRA video game strike. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024%E2%80%932025_SAG-AFTRA_video_game_strike
