4 ms·

My guess would be for voice actors to copyright their voices. I am not familiar with the voice generation ML but i guess for things like dramatic pauses a voice

• NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
  Conceivably, anyone who uses his or her voice for spoken word or singing could, in theory, cryptographically sign each master copy of the recording, and therefore certify that they were present and active in its creation. Of course any post-processing would lose this attestation. So it's practically useless, I suppose. But it would be a first-line of defense in copyright cases, at least, by being able to say "I did indeed say that, and here's the signature." or "You can't prove that I said and signed that."
  • unlikelymordant 4y ago
    Maybe a use case for NFTs hah.
    • andrewflnr 4y ago
      It's a use case for merkle trees. Since the mere existence of the hash at a reasonably well-attested time is sufficient, you don't need the rest. A handful of central roots of various trees is fine, morally equivalent to announcing things with an ad in the newspaper.
      • Yizahi 4y ago
        Now that I think about it, it seems to be a great idea - a verifiable record that some digital artifacts have existed at certain times. Of course it wouldn't be able to "prove ownership" or "prove being original" or other stupid ideas tokenbros throw around, that's impossible. But it wouldn't be profitable for the tokenbros and actually all the distributed attribute is not a requirement. We can probably set up a centralised append only DB which will periodically publish it's own hashes to attest that it wasn't tampered. Probably a useful tool for our deep fake future, the only question is how to scale it, who can be trusted and relied upon to input hashes in the system.
        • andrewflnr 4y ago
          The idea predates bitcoin IIRC.
  • debatem1 4y ago
    This is a thing I've started at pretty hard. Embedding a signal that survives basic postprocessing isn't that hard, but doing it in such a way that it stays well below the noise floor and survives extensive editing is not easy. If anyone is interested I could be convinced to put my work on GitHub, highly doubtful that it will go commercial unless I get a huge raft of free time.
    • NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
      Are you saying that a cryptographic signature could survive postprocessing? Well, it may, but when you post-process a sound clip, that sound changes itself. I mean, imagine playing cutups with a dialogue track; that actor may or may not want to attest that the final result is theirs. That's the whole thing. If you cut out three words of dialogue, it is no longer cryptographically signed.
• ekianjo 4y ago
  Trademark of the voices, not copyright...
• MBCook 4y ago
  Copyright might not be needed. SAG created a rule after Crispin Glover’s face was used without permission via a prosthetic in Back to the Future 2 to ensure it never happened again. I could easily see a similar rule being added by an appropriate union to their contracts to prevent AI copies of voices that weren’t approved by the original actor.
  • philistine 4y ago
    Video game voice actors are famously not unionized.
• judge2020 4y ago
  You already have the right to your likeness, which includes the things you say in your voice profile (especially when attached to your name, and not said in a manner like that of a parody or an impersonation for laughs). The threat is that, supposedly, pretty much all of the media companies that need Voice actors have a clause that allows them to use generative voice AI after the VA's death or if they're otherwise incapacitated to the point where they would be physically unable to get the voice actor back in the studio to record more lines. This is not outlandish for voice actors since they probably couldn't care less about their voice being used after they are dead, but it does mean we'll be hearing a lot more of it as more and more decade-long franchises use it to avoid hiring a good-enough impersonation or voice replacement once the old one dies.