Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity

Irish voiceover artist says an AI text-to-speech voice made from her recordings was resold online and used in ads and products she never booked

Remie Michelle Clarke, a voiceover artist in Dublin, told Bloomberg Law in April 2023 and Marketplace in June 2023 that a synthetic voice built from recordings she had made for Microsoft's text-to-speech software was being sold by a third-party AI voice company, Revoicer, as a voice called Olivia that customers could make say anything. She said she learned of it when a fellow actor asked whether another voice job had paid her well, that she had since found a number of adverts and a couple of tech products using her voice, and that buyers choosing the AI voice was affecting her smaller jobs. She said she was completely shocked. Microsoft told Marketplace that it informs voice talent and obtains their legal consent to create synthetic voices; it did not address the resale. No response from Revoicer and no legal action are reported in the inspected sources.

AI system
Revoicer text-to-speech (reported)
Occurred
Event date unknown
Reported
19 April 2023
Event location
Unknown
What the AI did
Depicted or impersonated the person
Reported harm
Exploitation or AbuseProfessional Harm
Whose AI use
Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Work · Privacy
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account
5 claims: 5 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: Synthetic text-to-speech voice called Olivia sold by Revoicer, an AI text-to-speech company, which Marketplace reports was licensed from voice recordings the artist made for Microsoft's text-to-speech software

What Happened

The voice. Marketplace reports that Clarke recorded thousands of sentences for Microsoft's text-to-speech software some years earlier and that her voice was since licensed to third-party companies, including Revoicer, 'an AI company selling text-to-speech voices'. Bloomberg Law describes her as the voice of Microsoft Bing in Ireland.

How she found it. She told Bloomberg Law that a fellow actor asked whether 'a different voice gig' had paid her well. She then found a text-to-speech website that offered her voice 'as a generic Irish woman', which customers could pay to make say anything. Marketplace says she recognised Revoicer's sample voice called Olivia.

What she reports. She told Marketplace she had come across 'quite a number of these ads' and 'a couple of tech products' using her voice, from buyers who 'opted for AI over maybe looking for the real voiceover artist', and that this was affecting her business in smaller jobs. She said she was 'completely shocked' and that Revoicer was profiting from hours of her work while she was left out.

Responses and limits. Microsoft said it informs voice talent about the use of their recordings to create synthetic voices and obtains their legal consent for this use. What her contract with Microsoft allowed, whether the third-party licence was within it, and any response from Revoicer are not stated in the inspected sources. Bloomberg Law's article was read only up to its paywall.

Reported harm

A voiceover artist says a synthetic voice made from her recordings was resold by an AI voice company, that she found it in adverts and tech products she never booked, and that buyers choosing it was affecting her smaller jobs; she said she was completely shocked (her account).

Outcome

Unknown

As of June 2023 she said she was looking at other work. No response from Revoicer, change to the licence, compensation or legal action is reported in the inspected sources.

What remains unknown

  • When she found the voice and when it was first offered; the earliest dated report is 19 April 2023.
  • What her agreement with Microsoft or its intermediary permitted, and whether the licence to Revoicer fell within it.
  • Which adverts and products used the voice, and how much work she lost.
  • Any response from Revoicer, and whether she sought compensation or took legal action.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. Marketplace reports that Revoicer, an AI text-to-speech company, sells a synthetic voice called Olivia that was licensed from the artist's recordings for Microsoft's text-to-speech software, and Bloomberg Law reports that customers could make her voice say anything. The system's generated speech reproduces her voice in adverts and products she says she never booked, which she connects to lost smaller jobs. The voice's origin rests on her account and the outlets' reporting; Revoicer has not been heard.

5 claims: 5 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported According to Marketplace, Remie Michelle Clarke, a voiceover artist in Dublin, recorded thousands of sentences for Microsoft's text-to-speech software some years earlier, and her voice was then licensed to third-party companies including Revoicer, an AI company selling text-to-speech voices.

Causal attribution. Marketplace's account, based on its interview with the artist; neither Revoicer nor the licensing chain was documented in an inspected source.

  • marketplace.org(opens in new tab) supports · English
    A few years ago, Michelle Clarke did some voiceover work for Microsoft, recording thousands of sentences for its text-to-speech software. Since then, her voice has been licensed to third-party companies, including one called Revoicer, an AI company selling text-to-speech voices.
Reported She says she found out when a fellow actor asked whether a different voice job had paid her well, and then found a text-to-speech website offering her voice, as a generic Irish woman's voice called Olivia, that customers could pay to make say anything.

Causal attribution. The artist's account given to two outlets; both interviews are one origin.

  • news.bloomberglaw.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    When an old friend and fellow actor called and asked if a different voice gig had paid Clarke well, she was confused and began to investigate.; What she found was a text-to-speech website that employed her voice as a generic Irish woman. Customers could pay to make Clarke’s voice say anything they liked
  • marketplace.org(opens in new tab) supports · English
    Michelle Clarke only realized her voice had been distributed when she came across Revoicer’s website and heard a sample of the company’s voice called Olivia.
Reported She says she has come across a number of adverts and a couple of tech products using her voice, that buyers opted for the AI voice over a real voiceover artist, and that this is affecting her business in smaller jobs.

Causal attribution. The artist's own assessment; no lost booking, amount or client is specified.

  • marketplace.org(opens in new tab) supports · English
    I have actually come across quite a number of these ads. I’ve even found a couple of tech products that use my voice. These are people who have opted for AI over maybe looking for the real voiceover artist behind it.; I have seen how it is affecting my business in that kind of tier of work.
Reported She said she was completely shocked and that the company was profiting from hours of her work while she was left out.

Causal attribution. The artist's statements in two interviews (one origin).

Reported Microsoft told Marketplace that it informs voice talent about the use of their recordings to create synthetic voices and obtains their legal consent for that use.

Causal attribution. Microsoft's statement as published by Marketplace; it does not address the third-party resale she describes.

  • marketplace.org(opens in new tab) supports · English
    we inform voice talent about the use of their audio recordings to create synthetic voices and we obtain their legal consent for this use.

Sources

2 sources inspected, from 1 underlying account. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

English article of 19 April 2023 read on 2026-10-24 by the research agent (an AI) up to the paywall (opening paragraphs only); no translation required. Applies to s1.

English edited interview transcript of 1 June 2023 read in full on 2026-10-24 by the research agent (an AI); no translation required. It includes Microsoft's statement. Both outlets interviewed the same artist, so they share one independence group. Applies to s2.

Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: Ireland. Court countries: Unknown.

The voice was sold on a website and used in adverts and products whose locations are not given, so no event country is recorded. Marketplace describes her as a voiceover artist in Dublin, Ireland, recorded as the affected person's country.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-24: Published as an ongoing adverse experience: a named voiceover artist says an AI text-to-speech voice made from her recordings was resold and used in adverts and products she never booked, affecting her work. The AI system's generated speech in her voice is the reported cause; the account is hers, Microsoft's consent statement is included, and Revoicer has not been heard.

People described

An Irish voiceover artist, Remie Michelle Clarke, who gave named interviews about the case

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One person: the voiceover artist whose voice the synthetic voice reproduces, by her account. She did not use the AI system.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#synthetic-voice#text-to-speech#voice-actors#consent

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Irish voiceover artist says an AI text-to-speech voice made from her recordings was resold online and used in ads and products she never booked. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2023-irish-voiceover-artist-says-ai-text-to-speech-voice-built-from-her-recordings-was-resold-and-used-in-ads

BibTeX

@misc{2023_irish_voiceover_artist_says_ai_text_to_speech_voice_built_from_her_recordings_was_resold_and_used_in_ads,
  title = {Irish voiceover artist says an AI text-to-speech voice made from her recordings was resold online and used in ads and products she never booked},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2023-irish-voiceover-artist-says-ai-text-to-speech-voice-built-from-her-recordings-was-resold-and-used-in-ads}
}

Related cases

Low Revoicer text-to-speech (reported)

British voice actor says an AI clone of his voice, built from an old IBM recording and sold to websites, has cost him jobs

Greg Marston, a British voice actor, said in accounts published in 2023 that an AI-generated clone of his voice, built from a recording he had made for IBM years earlier, was being sold to websites that were using it to build a synthetic voice that could say anything. Julia Angwin's New York Times column (republished by the Oman Observer on 25 September 2023) says he found the clone, called Connor, online and heard his voice on the Wimbledon website during the tennis tournament; Cryptopolitan (1 July 2023) says he found it on Revoicer, an AI text-to-speech site. He had signed a release allowing the recording to be used in many ways, but said he never agreed to having his voice cloned to compete against him. He estimated that the clone had already lost him jobs and was working with a lawyer to seek compensation. IBM said it was aware of his concern and was discussing it with him. The outcome is not reported in the inspected sources.

High Unidentified image tool

Incheon high-school student jailed for AI deepfake nude composites of his teachers posted online; a civil court later orders him to pay one teacher damages

In July 2024 a high-school student in Incheon, South Korea, composited the faces of two female teachers at his school and of others, including an academy senior and an instructor, onto nude photos and posted them on social media, according to the charges as reported by Yonhap, the Hankyoreh, the JoongAng Ilbo and the Kyunghyang Shinmun, which describe the technique as AI-based deepfake technology. He had also secretly photographed teachers in class. He was expelled after a teachers' rights committee hearing. On 27 August 2025 the Incheon District Court gave him an indeterminate prison term of one year to one year six months and took him into custody; the court said that as a result the victimised teacher had left teaching and had not returned. On 19 December 2025, after he had turned adult, the appeal division raised the sentence to three years, calling the offence close to 'character assassination' and the teachers' mental shock considerable; OBS reports the sentence is final. On 21 October 2026, according to the Incheon Teachers' Union, a civil judge at the Incheon District Court ordered him, now 20, to pay one teacher 17.7 million won of the roughly 72 million won she claimed.

High Unidentified image tool

Jeju: police refer a middle-school student over secretly filming teachers and making sexual deepfake composites; teachers dispute victim count and legal aid

Jeju Dongbu police announced on 23 September 2026 that a student at a middle school on Jeju had been referred to prosecutors without detention on 17 September for violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (filming with a camera or similar device). The student's phone was voluntarily submitted by his guardians and forensically examined; the examination found footage relating to some teachers and some sexual composites, and the student admitted the conduct. News1 reported that the student was booked for filming a teacher's body with his phone during a school field trip around mid-July 2026, that the offending had continued for several months with multiple victims, and that police found no indication the composites had been distributed. Police told Seoul Shinmun there were more victim teachers than the one first reported but withheld the number to avoid secondary harm, and that no student at the school was a victim; the Jeju teachers' union questioned whether the full scope of harm had been established. According to the union, two months on the victim teachers were receiving hospital treatment and counselling while teaching daily, gave police statements on 14 September without a lawyer, attended the regional teachers' rights protection committee on 17 September without institutional support, wrote the criminal complaint themselves, and were offered 3.3 million won in legal fees for all of them together, payable after the case ends; two requests to meet the superintendent were not accepted. On 29 September one of the victim teachers gave a press interview at the Jeju Teachers' Union office. She said that early in the investigation she had seen on the student's phone material showing other teachers and current students, had made a list of the people and types of harm, and that the material shown to her at the police victim examination was considerably less than what she had seen; Yonhap-chain outlets quote her as saying the students she recognised numbered 10 to 20 and that a graduate had suffered worse deepfakes. She said investigators asked the school only to identify the perpetrator and never requested material to identify the students in the footage, and that the school sent parents a letter premised on there being no student victims. Police replied that phone forensics had been thorough, that every act beyond social norms had been identified and proven, and that one student victim had been confirmed, a student at a different school. The teachers were notified on 22 September that the case had gone to the prosecution and on 24 September that it had been sent to the court's juvenile division as a juvenile protection case, before they had submitted further evidence and a victim opinion. The teacher said the original complaint had also asked police to examine whether physical contact in 2025 was forcible molestation and whether repeated approaching and waiting in 2026 was stalking, and Halla Ilbo reports that such conduct is said to date from 2025. Yonhap-chain reports describe the charged victims as five teachers. The same day the education office briefed on legal-aid rules (up to 6.6 million won per instance when a teacher is sued, 3.3 million won per case when a teacher files a complaint; office lawyers cannot act as a teacher's private counsel), said it had linked the teachers to the national Digital Sexual Crime Victim Support Center, announced an integrated support system through a hotline, and its section head said the office was sorry that early support had not been felt. The KTU Jeju branch (28 September) and the Jeju Teachers' Union (14 and 29 September) demand a victim-support system, per-teacher legal fees paid in advance and a dedicated support team. On 6 October 2026 Seogwipo Broadcasting reported, citing people in education and a tipster, that the education authority had finally rejected the victim teachers' application for lawyer fees for an additional criminal complaint, saying in a written opinion that with a police investigation already under way a further complaint could hardly stop or prevent the infringement of their teaching, so the support requirements were not met; critics contrast this with full legal-cost support in earlier sexual-offence cases.

Medium Unidentified image and video tool

Thanh Hóa, Vietnam: police say nearly 20 people were threatened with fabricated sexual images of themselves unless they paid; one demand was 1.5 billion dong

Thanh Hóa provincial police said on 3 October 2026 that their cybersecurity and high-tech crime division had, since the start of October, received reports from nearly 20 people threatened with extortion using sexual images and videos spliced from their own photos, which senders threatened to publish unless money was transferred. One victim was asked for as much as 1.5 billion dong, and officials, including commune-level leaders, were among the targets. The police release says the material was made with technology; Báo Thanh Hóa, reporting information compiled from the same police division, says the senders used AI and deepfake technology to put victims' faces onto sexual images. No payment, arrest or named victim is reported.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents