4 ms·
>If a random singer can duplicate the sound of a popular singer it's one thing; to use a process to clone the voice of that singer from the singer's own recordi
by angryasian 3y ago
>If a random singer can duplicate the sound of a popular singer it's one thing; to use a process to clone the voice of that singer from the singer's own recordings is a theft of that person's unique talent.
in the end the outcome is the same and happens all the time in the industry. When a voice actor portraying another character for an animated series, the original actor doesn't get compensated. Cloned or exactly duplicated is indistinguishable to the outcome.
>Same principle as if I took a paparazzi photo of a celebrity and sold it as portraits due to the fame of that person and for legitimate news purposes.
Not sure I understand this. paparazzi takes photo and sells photos ? whats the issue ?
- mikece 3y agoI cannot take and sell a photograph of you, capitalizing on your image and likeness, for my own profit without permission (the violation is called "conversion") unless the photos meet exceptions such as being newsworthy or just a general street photography photograph (but the people captured by street photographers aren't captured specifically for who they are but how they look in a scene and could have been anyone without changing the essential nature of the photograph).
- kevinmchugh 3y agoThe existence of paparazzi photography and pictures sold to tabloids makes me wonder how this could possibly be true