13 ms·

Robin Williams’ daughter Zelda slams AI for recreating her father’s voice

33 points by c420 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
visarga 3y ago
Good luck owning a voice in an infinite house of voices.
- __loam 3y ago
  It's illegal to use someone's likeness without their knowledge in a lot of places.
  - AndrewGaspar 3y ago
    Headline actors are inevitably going to be (already are?) selling the rights to their voice and likeness, setting up perpetual revenue streams for their estates, and in the next few years the parameters of those rights will almost assuredly be in every contract.
    - Avshalom 3y ago
      It might be inevitable but they're currently on strike in part to avoid selling those likeness rights.
      - sumtechguy 3y ago
        That could be amended in an explicit contract or quit the union. Say you are very sick/old/whatever/dontcare and need some money and have not had a gig in 10 years? I am will to bet we see a few of those soon. Then soon after the rise of the 'scanned' actor with no such contract but one that gives away those likenesses. They will be bought in packs like game assets.
  - Teever 3y ago
    What's the timeline on that sort of thing? Like I'm sure that some relative of Elvis Presley was paid for the Elvis movie that was recently released, but is anyone going to get paid for those new Napoleon movie/miniseries?
    - phone8675309 3y ago
      > is anyone going to get paid for those new Napoleon movie/miniseries At some point things enter the public domain, and facts aren't copyrightable.
      - Teever 3y ago
        That is correct, we are talking about when things enter the public domain, specifically the likeness of an individual.
  - ramesh31 3y ago
    >It's illegal to use someone's likeness without their knowledge in a lot of places. It's illegal to use their likeness claiming that it is actually them. I fail to see how AI voices are legally any different at all than using a human impersonator.
    - thrill 3y ago
      They're not.
yieldcrv 3y ago
> positioned herself in favor of the Hollywood strike, saying her dad ‘definitely would’ve been out there fighting the good fight for art and artists’ “fighting the good fight for people with skills the market doesn’t value as much as they thought” can someone explain it a different way to me
- __loam 3y ago
  The writers won the strike so clearly the studios value their labor.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    For now, with the existing state of the industry and the fact that AI tools have not been fully used by most studios, you are correct. Studios can't just change their whole process overnight. Revaluate this in a couple years, though, when new studios have popped up that can do the same work for a 10th the cost.
    - __loam 3y ago
      I've said this here before but I think a lot of people on hackernews are confused about how the market for creative industries actually works. Productivity alone is not necessarily correlated to profitability or potential success.
  - vlunkr 3y ago
    It isn't the first time either.
  - taeric 3y ago
    Depends what you mean by "won?" It is ending, but I'm not exactly hearing gnashing of teeth from the studios, here.
    - dagmx 3y ago
      The studios held out and eventually caved on pretty much every single demand. Not sure how that’s not a gnashing of teeth.
Ajay-p 3y ago
What if they had the voice of someone who was no longer living, no estate, or living relatives? Who would own that voice?
- hkhanna 3y ago
  In most states in the United States, if someone dies without a will and without anyone ascertainable in the line of intestate succession, the assets of the decedent escheat to the state. So, if the person lived in California when they passed, California would own the intellectual property associated with the voice. Why or whether the State of California would ever enforce or even seek to perfect those rights is a different matter.
  - candiodari 3y ago
    Intellectual property owned by the state is in the public domain, isn't it?
- headcanon 3y ago
  I don't think anyone would care enough to sue or otherwise make a ruckus, so they'd probably get away with it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Gibbon1 3y ago
This makes me think of something Nancy Sinatra said about life after her father died. There was no escaping it. She'd be shopping and one of his songs would start playing. AI aping your dead father has to be super creepy. Thought perhaps that needs to be outright illegal.
vlunkr 3y ago
This is just my cynical opinion, but I think humanity would be better off if we all just agreed to throw our AI research in the garbage. What is the upside to all of this? Worker A does less work, Worker B loses their job, and Worker A continues to make the same salary and work the same hours they did before. And on the other end, customers and consumers get more SEO spam, more low-quality art, music, tv shows, and books. As if we need more of anything. I'm not against all technology, this just feels like a particularly dangerous development.
- onedognight 3y ago
  We should throw out photo copiers and cameras in the garbage as well. After all, people have used them to reproduce the work of others since their inception.
  - axblount 3y ago
    AI isn't creating faithful reproductions of artwork. It's creating strange remixes of prior work without the artist's input or consent.
    - threatofrain 3y ago
      I thought it's blatant copying that is objectionable in the artistic industries where remixing is everywhere. Also, where does consent go into this? Do I need permission to produce a disrespectful satire (a remix) of the Nike logo?
      - vlunkr 3y ago
        > Do I need permission to produce a disrespectful satire (a remix) of the Nike logo? We have developed Fair Use laws over many years and many court cases to answer these kinds of questions. AI tools presently don't understand or care about that.
        threatofrain 3y ago
stuckinhell 3y ago
Voices aren't unique or under copyright. I understand her grief over this, but I also understand why people are pursuing this technology. It could be revolutionary in media generation.
francisofascii 3y ago
In related news, Nintendo sues Zelda Williams for copyright violations for being named after the character from their video game. /s
- kibibu 3y ago
  The name Zelda existed long before the game, or Nintendo.
  - francisofascii 3y ago
    Of course it existed long before, but that doesn't stop people from claiming ownership.
meta-level 3y ago
Anyone here who has seen the 2013 movie 'The Congress', loosely based on the Stanisław Lem novel 'The Futurological Congress'? I wonder why it's not being mentioned when it comes to copying and replacing actors by AI..
matthewfelgate 3y ago
Imagine getting mad at an inanimate object.
- cbozeman 3y ago
  It's pretty easy, go stub your toe on a coffee table...

33 points by c420 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

visarga 3y ago

Good luck owning a voice in an infinite house of voices.

__loam 3y ago
It's illegal to use someone's likeness without their knowledge in a lot of places.
- AndrewGaspar 3y ago
  Headline actors are inevitably going to be (already are?) selling the rights to their voice and likeness, setting up perpetual revenue streams for their estates, and in the next few years the parameters of those rights will almost assuredly be in every contract.
  - Avshalom 3y ago
    It might be inevitable but they're currently on strike in part to avoid selling those likeness rights.
    - sumtechguy 3y ago
      That could be amended in an explicit contract or quit the union. Say you are very sick/old/whatever/dontcare and need some money and have not had a gig in 10 years? I am will to bet we see a few of those soon. Then soon after the rise of the 'scanned' actor with no such contract but one that gives away those likenesses. They will be bought in packs like game assets.
- Teever 3y ago
  What's the timeline on that sort of thing? Like I'm sure that some relative of Elvis Presley was paid for the Elvis movie that was recently released, but is anyone going to get paid for those new Napoleon movie/miniseries?
  - phone8675309 3y ago
    > is anyone going to get paid for those new Napoleon movie/miniseries At some point things enter the public domain, and facts aren't copyrightable.
    - Teever 3y ago
      That is correct, we are talking about when things enter the public domain, specifically the likeness of an individual.
- ramesh31 3y ago
  >It's illegal to use someone's likeness without their knowledge in a lot of places. It's illegal to use their likeness claiming that it is actually them. I fail to see how AI voices are legally any different at all than using a human impersonator.
  - thrill 3y ago
    They're not.

yieldcrv 3y ago

> positioned herself in favor of the Hollywood strike, saying her dad ‘definitely would’ve been out there fighting the good fight for art and artists’ “fighting the good fight for people with skills the market doesn’t value as much as they thought” can someone explain it a different way to me

__loam 3y ago
The writers won the strike so clearly the studios value their labor.
- stale2002 3y ago
  For now, with the existing state of the industry and the fact that AI tools have not been fully used by most studios, you are correct. Studios can't just change their whole process overnight. Revaluate this in a couple years, though, when new studios have popped up that can do the same work for a 10th the cost.
  - __loam 3y ago
    I've said this here before but I think a lot of people on hackernews are confused about how the market for creative industries actually works. Productivity alone is not necessarily correlated to profitability or potential success.
- vlunkr 3y ago
  It isn't the first time either.
- taeric 3y ago
  Depends what you mean by "won?" It is ending, but I'm not exactly hearing gnashing of teeth from the studios, here.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    The studios held out and eventually caved on pretty much every single demand. Not sure how that’s not a gnashing of teeth.

Ajay-p 3y ago

What if they had the voice of someone who was no longer living, no estate, or living relatives? Who would own that voice?

hkhanna 3y ago
In most states in the United States, if someone dies without a will and without anyone ascertainable in the line of intestate succession, the assets of the decedent escheat to the state. So, if the person lived in California when they passed, California would own the intellectual property associated with the voice. Why or whether the State of California would ever enforce or even seek to perfect those rights is a different matter.
- candiodari 3y ago
  Intellectual property owned by the state is in the public domain, isn't it?
headcanon 3y ago
I don't think anyone would care enough to sue or otherwise make a ruckus, so they'd probably get away with it.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Gibbon1 3y ago

This makes me think of something Nancy Sinatra said about life after her father died. There was no escaping it. She'd be shopping and one of his songs would start playing. AI aping your dead father has to be super creepy. Thought perhaps that needs to be outright illegal.

vlunkr 3y ago

This is just my cynical opinion, but I think humanity would be better off if we all just agreed to throw our AI research in the garbage. What is the upside to all of this? Worker A does less work, Worker B loses their job, and Worker A continues to make the same salary and work the same hours they did before. And on the other end, customers and consumers get more SEO spam, more low-quality art, music, tv shows, and books. As if we need more of anything. I'm not against all technology, this just feels like a particularly dangerous development.

onedognight 3y ago
We should throw out photo copiers and cameras in the garbage as well. After all, people have used them to reproduce the work of others since their inception.
- axblount 3y ago
  AI isn't creating faithful reproductions of artwork. It's creating strange remixes of prior work without the artist's input or consent.
  - threatofrain 3y ago
    I thought it's blatant copying that is objectionable in the artistic industries where remixing is everywhere. Also, where does consent go into this? Do I need permission to produce a disrespectful satire (a remix) of the Nike logo?
    - vlunkr 3y ago
      > Do I need permission to produce a disrespectful satire (a remix) of the Nike logo? We have developed Fair Use laws over many years and many court cases to answer these kinds of questions. AI tools presently don't understand or care about that.
      - threatofrain 3y ago

stuckinhell 3y ago

Voices aren't unique or under copyright. I understand her grief over this, but I also understand why people are pursuing this technology. It could be revolutionary in media generation.

francisofascii 3y ago

In related news, Nintendo sues Zelda Williams for copyright violations for being named after the character from their video game. /s

kibibu 3y ago
The name Zelda existed long before the game, or Nintendo.
- francisofascii 3y ago
  Of course it existed long before, but that doesn't stop people from claiming ownership.

meta-level 3y ago

Anyone here who has seen the 2013 movie 'The Congress', loosely based on the Stanisław Lem novel 'The Futurological Congress'? I wonder why it's not being mentioned when it comes to copying and replacing actors by AI..

matthewfelgate 3y ago

Imagine getting mad at an inanimate object.

cbozeman 3y ago
It's pretty easy, go stub your toe on a coffee table...