iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
David Greene, a former host of NPR’s Morning Edition, alleges that a male voice in Google NotebookLM’s Audio Overviews sounds like him and was used without his permission. Google denies using Greene’s voice and says it hired a professional actor. A July 2026 court ruling let Greene’s right-of-publicity case proceed past one copyright defense; it did not decide whether his allegation is true.
What Greene says happened
NotebookLM’s Audio Overviews generate podcast-like audio summaries using male and female voices. Greene said friends contacted him after hearing the feature and asked whether he had licensed his voice. He described the experience to TheWrap as unsettling: “I was, like, completely freaked out,” and “It’s this eerie moment where you feel like you’re listening to yourself.” He also said, “My voice is, like, the most important part of who I am.”
Greene alleges that Google used a voice resembling his without permission or compensation. That is an allegation in a lawsuit, not an established finding that Google copied his recordings or trained a model on them.
What Google says
Google has rejected Greene’s allegation. A spokesperson called it “baseless” in comments reported by TheWrap. Google also said that “the sound of the male voice in NotebookLM’s Audio Overviews is based on a paid professional actor Google hired,” according to La Voce di New York.
The two accounts address different possible explanations for the resemblance: Greene says the voice sounds like him, while Google says an actor was hired. The reporting available does not independently establish where the voice came from or whether Greene’s recordings were used.
What the reported voice analysis does—and does not—show
TheWrap reported that Greene cited an AI-forensics firm’s assessment giving a 53 percent to 60 percent confidence rating that his voice was used. The figure is an assessment cited by Greene, not a court finding. The reviewed coverage does not provide the analysis or its methodology, or establish that the percentage is a calibrated probability of training-data use. It should not be read as proof that Google used Greene’s recordings.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the court ruled in July 2026
On July 24, 2026, Bloomberg Law reported that a federal judge in the Northern District of California rejected Google’s copyright-preemption argument against Greene’s right-of-publicity suit. As reported, the distinction was between a claim that a product generated a person’s voice and a claim that copyrighted input material was copied.
This was a procedural ruling on whether copyright arguments could keep the publicity claim out of court. It did not determine that Google used Greene’s voice, that Google is liable, or that Greene is entitled to damages. The reviewed reporting does not establish what happened in the case after that ruling or its ultimate outcome.
Quick Recap
What remains unresolved
- Resemblance: Greene says the voice sounds like him; the available reporting does not resolve whether listeners or experts would identify it as his.
- Recording or training-data use: Greene alleges unauthorized use, while Google says an actor supplied the male voice. The reported court ruling did not settle which account is accurate.
- Confusion or harm: The reviewed coverage does not establish a court finding about audience confusion, commercial harm, or damages.
- Legal outcome: The July 2026 ruling addressed one defense, not the merits. The eventual disposition is not established by the reporting cited here.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
