4 ms·

The copyright laws around this are fascinating. They're adamant it must be non-commercial, they must be credited, and it can't be mixed with any other generated

The copyright laws around this are fascinating. They're adamant it must be non-commercial, they must be credited, and it can't be mixed with any other generated content. Meanwhile their content is exclusively derived from popular commercial products. Oh and they also make money via Patreon donations. I dunno. Feels a little gross to me. Eventually there is going to be a big copyright case about a model trained with copyrighted material. I have no idea how that will be resolved. Or maybe there will simply be new laws passed to make it either explicitly ok or explicitly not ok.

deeplearner1 4y ago
“Make money”? The creator loses several thousands of dollars a month hosting the site, and it’s done for free. The Patreon donations are all voluntary and only offer a pittance to the developer. I highly suggest reading into the project first. The Wiki article I linked before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15.ai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15.ai) answers all of your questions about copyright infringement.
- forrestthewoods 4y ago
  Feel free to replace "make money" with "collect revenue". This is currently a research project (with funding). However it's long-term goal is to achieve commercial quality voice acting and dubbing. It could be given away for free, sold directly, sold downstream, sold indirectly, or otherwise generate commercial value. In terms of copyright infringement, your wiki link answers nothing. A court ruled that Google could use copyrighted book text to train an algorithm to improve search results because the copying was highly transformative and did not serve as a market substitute to the original work. Meanwhile 15.ai is using copyrighted voice recordings to train an algorithm to synthesize new voice recordings that sound like they came from the original speaker. This is radically different from the Google case. Just because one instance of using copyrighted material to train an algorithm qualifies as fair use does not mean that all use of copyright material to train any algorithm also qualifies as fair use. There is absolutely nothing about this that is settled law. In the next 20 years there are going to be lots of lawsuits, lots of settlements, possibly a few rulings, and maybe even a few new laws. I find the whole topic very interesting. YMMV.
  - Closi 4y ago
    Like you say, the law is not settled on this, but I assume if the author got a takedown request they would probably comply. In many instances a policy of "ask for forgiveness rather than permission" can get you further, faster. While Nickelodeon are unlikely to grant you a license to the Spongebob voice because that has broader licensing and IP repercussions, they are likely to tolerate a research project using their characters (e.g. just as they have to-date tolerated The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie Rehydrated, which was a fan re-creation of one of their actual movies).
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- noobermin 4y ago
  I heavily doubt it's "several thousands of dollars"...
  - 15ai 4y ago
    It is indeed several thousands of dollars a month. I can show you AWS invoices, if you're skeptical. Just send me an email and I'd be happy to show proof.
    - noobermin 4y ago
      No, you don't need to send me pictures of your invoice...I'll just take your word for it then.
    - adastra22 4y ago
      AWS is like 10x as expensive as the competition, most of the time. Have you considered switching hosting providers?
throwaway675309 4y ago
Also he admits to doing all of that or at least a majority of the work while under the funding of MIT...
redredrobot 4y ago
I would imagine it will end with a similar outcome to video game likenesses - a person owns their likeness and you can't create products that includes their likeness without their consent.
- MrTrvp 4y ago
  What would that mean for parodies though, death of satire. Can likenesses have fair use or perhaps only for for positive representations of the person?

deeplearner1 4y ago

“Make money”? The creator loses several thousands of dollars a month hosting the site, and it’s done for free. The Patreon donations are all voluntary and only offer a pittance to the developer. I highly suggest reading into the project first. The Wiki article I linked before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15.ai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15.ai) answers all of your questions about copyright infringement.

forrestthewoods 4y ago
Feel free to replace "make money" with "collect revenue". This is currently a research project (with funding). However it's long-term goal is to achieve commercial quality voice acting and dubbing. It could be given away for free, sold directly, sold downstream, sold indirectly, or otherwise generate commercial value. In terms of copyright infringement, your wiki link answers nothing. A court ruled that Google could use copyrighted book text to train an algorithm to improve search results because the copying was highly transformative and did not serve as a market substitute to the original work. Meanwhile 15.ai is using copyrighted voice recordings to train an algorithm to synthesize new voice recordings that sound like they came from the original speaker. This is radically different from the Google case. Just because one instance of using copyrighted material to train an algorithm qualifies as fair use does not mean that all use of copyright material to train any algorithm also qualifies as fair use. There is absolutely nothing about this that is settled law. In the next 20 years there are going to be lots of lawsuits, lots of settlements, possibly a few rulings, and maybe even a few new laws. I find the whole topic very interesting. YMMV.
- Closi 4y ago
  Like you say, the law is not settled on this, but I assume if the author got a takedown request they would probably comply. In many instances a policy of "ask for forgiveness rather than permission" can get you further, faster. While Nickelodeon are unlikely to grant you a license to the Spongebob voice because that has broader licensing and IP repercussions, they are likely to tolerate a research project using their characters (e.g. just as they have to-date tolerated The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie Rehydrated, which was a fan re-creation of one of their actual movies).
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
noobermin 4y ago
I heavily doubt it's "several thousands of dollars"...
- 15ai 4y ago
  It is indeed several thousands of dollars a month. I can show you AWS invoices, if you're skeptical. Just send me an email and I'd be happy to show proof.
  - noobermin 4y ago
    No, you don't need to send me pictures of your invoice...I'll just take your word for it then.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    AWS is like 10x as expensive as the competition, most of the time. Have you considered switching hosting providers?

throwaway675309 4y ago

Also he admits to doing all of that or at least a majority of the work while under the funding of MIT...

redredrobot 4y ago

I would imagine it will end with a similar outcome to video game likenesses - a person owns their likeness and you can't create products that includes their likeness without their consent.

MrTrvp 4y ago
What would that mean for parodies though, death of satire. Can likenesses have fair use or perhaps only for for positive representations of the person?