3 ms·
Hopefully slightly less thorny when the voice cloned is of someone who died 40 years before the song they have it cover; e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J
by aidenn0 3y ago
Hopefully slightly less thorny when the voice cloned is of someone who died 40 years before the song they have it cover; e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Jh7Jk3aSlo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Jh7Jk3aSlo
- minimaxir 3y agoThat just makes it even more thorny because "who owns a voice" is legitimately a complicated legal question. Does the record label still own the cloned voice used for a song? What were the original samples used to clone the voice used from? With Stable Diffusion and ChatGPT you can argue that it's a massive amalgamation of inputs with no specific one having a huge impact, but voice cloning currently requires specific example(s). In the case of voice actors being unable to get their voices taken down from AI sites, they can't take legal action because the IP owners have the rights to their performance.
- aidenn0 3y agoI think it's strictly less thorny because all of those things are issues with living artists, but you have lots of other added issues when the AI generated voice is also plausibly something that a living person might have done.