Matt Lucas and Hugh Bonneville among actors calling for law on AI voice cloning
More than 80 performers, including Matt Lucas, Hugh Bonneville and Nicola Coughlan, have urged the UK government to create a legal right for people to own their voices, protecting them from unauthorised AI cloning. They argue that rapidly improving voice-copying technology threatens performers’ livelihoods and personal identities, while the government says it will consult on addressing harms without stifling legitimate innovation.
The campaign was co-founded by audiobook narrator Alice Sockett, who says voice theft is increasing and calls the technology an existential threat to her industry. Supporters say current law does not fully protect voices, faces or identities, although AI voice replication can also help people who have lost their ability to speak, such as those with motor neurone disease.
- Performers demand legal ownership rights over their voices.
- More than 80 people signed the letter.
- AI voice cloning has both risks and accessibility benefits.
New here? Start with this
AI voice cloning uses software trained on recordings of a person speaking to produce new speech that sounds like them. It can be used in entertainment, audiobooks, adverts and assistive technology, but it can also create convincing recordings without the speaker’s permission.
Actors, narrators and other performers often depend on their distinctive voices for work. In the UK, there is no single, clear legal right allowing someone to control all uses of their voice or likeness, so disputes may rely on a mix of existing rules.
The debate concerns how to protect people from impersonation and lost income while allowing beneficial uses of the technology. The government is considering whether current laws need changing as AI tools become more widely available.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
A clear legal right over one’s voice could close gaps in existing protections and give performers practical control over a core part of their identity and livelihood. Advocates argue that consent, fair payment and effective remedies are especially important when a convincing replica can be made and reused at scale, potentially misleading audiences or replacing paid work. They see targeted rules as a safeguard for dignity, trust and a sustainable creative sector.
The case against
A broad ownership right could be difficult to define and risk restricting legitimate uses of synthetic speech, parody, research and accessible assistive technology. Critics may argue that the law should focus on demonstrable harms such as fraud, deception, privacy breaches and contractual misuse, using proportionate remedies rather than creating an expansive new property right. This approach seeks to preserve innovation and the benefits of voice technology, including for people who have lost their speech, while still addressing abuse.
AI Celebrity Entertainment Government Politics Technology UK World