5 ms·

It's an interesting question, copyright doesn't cover tone/pitch/etc... so how do you protect that? Should you even be allowed to?

dave_sullivan 6y ago
As someone that wants to abolish patents and limit copyright, I'd say no. Others without those leanings will no doubt disagree.
- onethought 6y ago
  So if you limit copyright, how do you intend to monetise original expression? Or you don’t agree such things should be monetised
  - dave_sullivan 6y ago
    They are free to make money during the term of the copyright, but that term should be reduced by a lot. And I don't think the definition of copyright should be extended to include someone's voice, style, appearance, recipes, or others that I'm leaving out.
    - onethought 6y ago
      Is it an extension? (I know technically it is). Voice could be captured as accent/pitch/tone... I guess it’s a problem as there would be too much natural overlap, so not really a novel expression.
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        Maybe voice would be better suited to trademark protection? After all, it isn't really about accent/pitch/tone, but about being sure that if something sounds like it's voiced by $VoiceActor, it's actually voiced by $VoiceActor (and $VoiceActor gets their cut of royalties/recognition).
tyingq 6y ago
Bette Midler won her lawsuit against Ford Motor Co: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
- onethought 6y ago
  So that only worked because Bette Midler was very well known AND the main reason for using the impersonation was to get that recognition. So you could still deep fake voice actors with the intention of just saving money rather than wanting people to recognise them.
lloda 6y ago
There's probably a trademark / misrepresentation / self image rights angle that could be argued, same as with say faces. That wouldn't seem unfair to me. It should require a lot more than just pitch similarity imo.
jonathanstrange 6y ago
It may be a grey zone now but I find it likely that judges will decide that copyright does cover the sound of someone's voice and other aspects (intonation, accent), as these are vital aspect of the performance and often the reason why a voice actor gets hired. I'd go much farther than that. Unique features of someone's voice and appearance (face, walk) should not only be protected by copyright but also by privacy laws. It would be crazy if producers were allowed to make arbitrary videos with anyone's appearance and voice, putting words in your mouth you'd never endorse. Luckily, this may be one of the cases when politics will react fast and swiftly, if necessary with new laws, since politicians would likely be among the first victims of the new trend.

dave_sullivan 6y ago

As someone that wants to abolish patents and limit copyright, I'd say no. Others without those leanings will no doubt disagree.

onethought 6y ago
So if you limit copyright, how do you intend to monetise original expression? Or you don’t agree such things should be monetised
- dave_sullivan 6y ago
  They are free to make money during the term of the copyright, but that term should be reduced by a lot. And I don't think the definition of copyright should be extended to include someone's voice, style, appearance, recipes, or others that I'm leaving out.
  - onethought 6y ago
    Is it an extension? (I know technically it is). Voice could be captured as accent/pitch/tone... I guess it’s a problem as there would be too much natural overlap, so not really a novel expression.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      Maybe voice would be better suited to trademark protection? After all, it isn't really about accent/pitch/tone, but about being sure that if something sounds like it's voiced by $VoiceActor, it's actually voiced by $VoiceActor (and $VoiceActor gets their cut of royalties/recognition).

tyingq 6y ago

Bette Midler won her lawsuit against Ford Motor Co: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

onethought 6y ago
So that only worked because Bette Midler was very well known AND the main reason for using the impersonation was to get that recognition. So you could still deep fake voice actors with the intention of just saving money rather than wanting people to recognise them.

lloda 6y ago

There's probably a trademark / misrepresentation / self image rights angle that could be argued, same as with say faces. That wouldn't seem unfair to me. It should require a lot more than just pitch similarity imo.

jonathanstrange 6y ago

It may be a grey zone now but I find it likely that judges will decide that copyright does cover the sound of someone's voice and other aspects (intonation, accent), as these are vital aspect of the performance and often the reason why a voice actor gets hired. I'd go much farther than that. Unique features of someone's voice and appearance (face, walk) should not only be protected by copyright but also by privacy laws. It would be crazy if producers were allowed to make arbitrary videos with anyone's appearance and voice, putting words in your mouth you'd never endorse. Luckily, this may be one of the cases when politics will react fast and swiftly, if necessary with new laws, since politicians would likely be among the first victims of the new trend.