6 ms·

Voices are uncopyrightable, but impersonation isn't legal (see Midler v. Ford, for a notable case), so I don't think the situation is totally clear.

deepsun 3y ago
> voice actors are fearing that the ability for generative AI to replicate their voices may cost them work I'm not sure how to feel about that. I'm against the idea that some people "deserve" being paid for being lucky born with an interesting voice. On the other hand, the world always worked like that. And, say, hard-working farmer or doctor were also lucky being born with necessary traits to make for their living, while others weren't.
- minimaxir 3y ago
  Voice acting is more than just talking into a microphone. It's a skill not limited to the quality of voice.
  - deepsun 3y ago
    A lot of skills are not simple, but computers have taken over them anyways. For example, financial bookkeeping is not just writing and storing the books, it's a professional skill with many tricks to learn. However, databases and spreadsheets have taken the major part from those jobs. Same could be said about programmers who learned the skill of programming Assembly language. Or performing -- vinyl records and CDs has largely taken over orchestras and traveling musicians. I would vote for it only if it somehow encouraged voice actors to experiment and create new interesting styles. Kinda like patents were designed to do -- encourage inventors (although recently it became controversial in IT world).
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - vunderba 3y ago
    You could have made that argument more effectively in the past when voice actors had to be able to mimic multiple voices (Dan Castlenetta, Mel Blanc, etc.). Nowadays, we're seeing more and more shows where the voices of the characters are just... the normal voice of the voice actor. Of course it's not totally devoid of skill, you need to be able to emote, inflect, and convey emotion, but the bar is far far lower.
    - fomine3 3y ago
      I argue that emote is more important skill than switching multiple voice character, though latter contributes get more jobs
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    Yes, everyone has a voice. The amount of people who can convincingly act with said voice is remarkably small and requires a good deal of innate ability or training, generally both.
- vasco 3y ago
  > that some people "deserve" being paid for being lucky born with an interesting voice Majority of success is attained like this though. Athletes paid for being born strong tall and fast, models paid for being pretty, rich families being paid for being born rich, smart people being paid for being born smart, or hardworking, etc. It's the most dominant factor everywhere.
sofixa 3y ago
It's always funny to me when people cite old American case law and try to wrangle their heads around how that can apply to a situation which the case's participants couldn't have possibly imagined. Shouldn't the correct way to do this be new legislation being created after consulting interest groups to answer the modern problems which exist due to modern realities, like what the EU is doing? It seems much more sensible of an approach instead of wondering how a 15th century ruling's ruler would have applied his thinking about something they couldn't even dream of.
- lazide 3y ago
  Interest groups == lobbyists in this case. Which might explain some of the American hesitation.
  - sofixa 3y ago
    Well yes, you need to ask representatives of the people that will be impacted by a law what the impact will be, assess expert opinions, etc. Lobbying isn't only the American political bribery system, there's legitimate reasons behind it.
    - lazide 3y ago
      Of course! And that those with the deepest pockets are able to afford to have the most convincing folks spend the most time waiting for an opening in the various Representatives calendars is not surprising, and only natural. That it often results in them getting an equivalent mindshare (or more) of the Representatives views is also not surprising, and only natural. It doesn't inspire warm fuzzies in those too busy working to survive though.
- flextheruler 3y ago
  Your government class didn’t cover common law versus case law?
  - sofixa 3y ago
lazide 3y ago
As long as they don’t claim the voice is the original actor (misspell the name perhaps, or the Hollywood classic ‘based on’), they won’t be impersonating no?
- gs17 3y ago
  The Ford ad didn't say it was Midler, they just implied it by using her song with a soundalike. There was another similar case with a parody ruled as impersonation. I don't think there's good precedent for exactly where that line is drawn.
  - lazide 3y ago
    Fascinating, thanks!

deepsun 3y ago

> voice actors are fearing that the ability for generative AI to replicate their voices may cost them work I'm not sure how to feel about that. I'm against the idea that some people "deserve" being paid for being lucky born with an interesting voice. On the other hand, the world always worked like that. And, say, hard-working farmer or doctor were also lucky being born with necessary traits to make for their living, while others weren't.

minimaxir 3y ago
Voice acting is more than just talking into a microphone. It's a skill not limited to the quality of voice.
- deepsun 3y ago
  A lot of skills are not simple, but computers have taken over them anyways. For example, financial bookkeeping is not just writing and storing the books, it's a professional skill with many tricks to learn. However, databases and spreadsheets have taken the major part from those jobs. Same could be said about programmers who learned the skill of programming Assembly language. Or performing -- vinyl records and CDs has largely taken over orchestras and traveling musicians. I would vote for it only if it somehow encouraged voice actors to experiment and create new interesting styles. Kinda like patents were designed to do -- encourage inventors (although recently it became controversial in IT world).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- vunderba 3y ago
  You could have made that argument more effectively in the past when voice actors had to be able to mimic multiple voices (Dan Castlenetta, Mel Blanc, etc.). Nowadays, we're seeing more and more shows where the voices of the characters are just... the normal voice of the voice actor. Of course it's not totally devoid of skill, you need to be able to emote, inflect, and convey emotion, but the bar is far far lower.
  - fomine3 3y ago
    I argue that emote is more important skill than switching multiple voice character, though latter contributes get more jobs
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  Yes, everyone has a voice. The amount of people who can convincingly act with said voice is remarkably small and requires a good deal of innate ability or training, generally both.
vasco 3y ago
> that some people "deserve" being paid for being lucky born with an interesting voice Majority of success is attained like this though. Athletes paid for being born strong tall and fast, models paid for being pretty, rich families being paid for being born rich, smart people being paid for being born smart, or hardworking, etc. It's the most dominant factor everywhere.

sofixa 3y ago

It's always funny to me when people cite old American case law and try to wrangle their heads around how that can apply to a situation which the case's participants couldn't have possibly imagined. Shouldn't the correct way to do this be new legislation being created after consulting interest groups to answer the modern problems which exist due to modern realities, like what the EU is doing? It seems much more sensible of an approach instead of wondering how a 15th century ruling's ruler would have applied his thinking about something they couldn't even dream of.

lazide 3y ago
Interest groups == lobbyists in this case. Which might explain some of the American hesitation.
- sofixa 3y ago
  Well yes, you need to ask representatives of the people that will be impacted by a law what the impact will be, assess expert opinions, etc. Lobbying isn't only the American political bribery system, there's legitimate reasons behind it.
  - lazide 3y ago
    Of course! And that those with the deepest pockets are able to afford to have the most convincing folks spend the most time waiting for an opening in the various Representatives calendars is not surprising, and only natural. That it often results in them getting an equivalent mindshare (or more) of the Representatives views is also not surprising, and only natural. It doesn't inspire warm fuzzies in those too busy working to survive though.
flextheruler 3y ago
Your government class didn’t cover common law versus case law?
- sofixa 3y ago

lazide 3y ago

As long as they don’t claim the voice is the original actor (misspell the name perhaps, or the Hollywood classic ‘based on’), they won’t be impersonating no?

gs17 3y ago
The Ford ad didn't say it was Midler, they just implied it by using her song with a soundalike. There was another similar case with a parody ruled as impersonation. I don't think there's good precedent for exactly where that line is drawn.
- lazide 3y ago
  Fascinating, thanks!