AI Vocal Worker Suing Kanye Fears For His Safety, Asks To Remain Anonymous

A producer suing Kanye West for at least $220,000 over allegedly unpaid AI vocal work faced a delay in his bid to keep his name private.

Judge Kristin S. Escalante heard arguments in Los Angeles Superior Court, then continued the hearing.

The producer, suing as John Doe, named Ye and Yeezy Record Label LLC as defendants on August 3. He alleged he had not been paid, given a written contract or credited on streaming platforms.

His attorney, Mark Steven Avila, cited fears for Doe’s safety and his family’s safety in court papers reported by MyNewsLA. The request would shield his legal name, home address and relatives’ identifying details without sealing the complaint or closing proceedings.

“Every allegation, every filing and every ruling in this case remains fully public,” Avila wrote, according to MyNewsLA.

The complaint reported that Doe sought at least $110,000 for seven released tracks, plus double damages under Los Angeles’ freelance worker ordinance. The complaint alleged that Ye and Yeezy recognized his contributions, promised changes to streaming credits and later offered a master buyout.

Doe said he was hired on August 1, 2024, two days before Vultures 2 arrived. He said he recorded his own voice as source material and made more than 400 vocal generations using at least 13 custom AI voice models.

He claimed contributions to five tracks on the album.

He said work on Bully began in October 2024 and included more AI vocal production, along with writing contributions to two released songs.

Los Angeles’ ordinance requires written agreements for covered freelance contracts worth at least $600, including when jobs for the same client reach that amount within a calendar year.

The agreement must spell out the services, compensation and payment deadline. The ordinance also allows damages of up to twice the unpaid amount if payment is late.

A separate case involving Ye’s former intelligence aide raised a similar privacy issue in 2025. A judge allowed that different plaintiff to use a pseudonym, finding that keeping his name private would not hinder discovery or depositions.

For the producer, the next hearing on anonymity is set for November 18.