2 ms·

Someone's voice seems to me like unique artwork. Especially when its obvious who the speaker is. Its like you have a Tupac hologram advertising cheese sicks on

by godmode2019 4y ago

Someone's voice seems to me like unique artwork. Especially when its obvious who the speaker is. Its like you have a Tupac hologram advertising cheese sicks on TV, no permission, you use his voice and body, but he is alive. You are using someone's 'likeness' for profit. Voice might be under protected biometric data as well.

rockemsockem 4y ago
It seems more straightforward to me in cases of imagery, where there is less room for ambiguity. How different does a voice have to sound to not "be" another person's voice? I believe the laws on the books today are intended to deal explicitly with the actual person's voice recorded by some microphone. I think once you move into the realm of "this is a voice, generated from a model trained on audio samples of some person's voice" then it becomes unclear whether existing laws apply. If you further add into the equation that some models are trained on several speakers then it gets even muddier I think. If you advertise "this is person X" then I think it becomes problematic, but for different reasons, since at that point you're using the persons' name to advertise your product. IDK what you mean about biometric data being protected. I'm pretty sure there's no law stopping me from pulling your fingerprint off of a coffee mug you left at Starbucks, creating a high resolution scan of it, and posting it at godmode2019-fingerprint.com EDIT: after some quick Googling it looks like there are some biometric privacy laws on the books in certain U.S. states that would prevent something like godmode2019-fingerprint.com, but it does not appear to be comprehensive across the US. Not sure about other countries.
- godmode2019 4y ago
  All I know is I would be pretty annoyed if a company made a clone of my voice and made me say things for money.
  - rockemsockem 4y ago
    Yeah, that I totally get. I just think tech like this falls squarely into the gray zone for existing laws.

rockemsockem 4y ago

It seems more straightforward to me in cases of imagery, where there is less room for ambiguity. How different does a voice have to sound to not "be" another person's voice? I believe the laws on the books today are intended to deal explicitly with the actual person's voice recorded by some microphone. I think once you move into the realm of "this is a voice, generated from a model trained on audio samples of some person's voice" then it becomes unclear whether existing laws apply. If you further add into the equation that some models are trained on several speakers then it gets even muddier I think. If you advertise "this is person X" then I think it becomes problematic, but for different reasons, since at that point you're using the persons' name to advertise your product. IDK what you mean about biometric data being protected. I'm pretty sure there's no law stopping me from pulling your fingerprint off of a coffee mug you left at Starbucks, creating a high resolution scan of it, and posting it at godmode2019-fingerprint.com EDIT: after some quick Googling it looks like there are some biometric privacy laws on the books in certain U.S. states that would prevent something like godmode2019-fingerprint.com, but it does not appear to be comprehensive across the US. Not sure about other countries.

godmode2019 4y ago
All I know is I would be pretty annoyed if a company made a clone of my voice and made me say things for money.
- rockemsockem 4y ago
  Yeah, that I totally get. I just think tech like this falls squarely into the gray zone for existing laws.