3 ms·

That assumes an incredibly slippery slope. > I just can't imagine it'd be a good thing to have your voice be owned by someone else just because they became fam

That assumes an incredibly slippery slope. > I just can't imagine it'd be a good thing to have your voice be owned by someone else just because they became famous first. Are you saying that anyone being able to train generative AI on someone's work or a facsimile to directly compete with them is actually better for commercial artists?

ghaff 2y ago
I think what they’re saying is directors of films, commercials, etc. probably at least start with a certain type of voice they’re looking for. And might well communicate that to a casting director by naming some specific actors they’re familiar with.
- Ylpertnodi 2y ago
  The country I'm in dubs a lot of usa films. Rambo in another language is hilarious, other actors are played by different VAs so eg schwarzenegger sounds different every film. So sj will be played by many vactresses...In many countries.
  - sroussey 2y ago
    This is a great use case. If I were a famous actor, I would require them to take my voice and use AI to translate into another language. They will likely still need another voice actor to have the AI voice follow to get it right. But I would want my voice on every version. Also, AI to change my lip movement so that it does not look dubbed.
- chefandy 2y ago
  It's seems like the slippery slope argument is saying it would be risky for an AD to say "we need a deep gravelly voice, but more like Donald Sutherland than Robert Loggia. Let's see who we get that has that vibe." I don't see it. What the industry wants to be able to do is say "We want Donald Sutherland but don't want to pay his rates. Let's pay this company that has modeled his voiceover style so we can have our own Donald Sutherland." I think the Marvin Gaye ruling is concerning, especially because no mere mortal could hope to either launch or defend themselves against such an action. However, I don't think those extremes are a reason to just say "oh well. I guess fair use should apply to nearly all derivative use, even commercially. If that means creativity is only commercially viable for AI companies now, so be it." Professional creative expertise can't be replaced by generative AI, and it's important to or society, but copyright is the only set of guardrails on the only viable market for many creative fields. I'd love to abolish copyright, but first is love to live in a society that could support the millions of people that use it as currency.

ghaff 2y ago

I think what they’re saying is directors of films, commercials, etc. probably at least start with a certain type of voice they’re looking for. And might well communicate that to a casting director by naming some specific actors they’re familiar with.

Ylpertnodi 2y ago
The country I'm in dubs a lot of usa films. Rambo in another language is hilarious, other actors are played by different VAs so eg schwarzenegger sounds different every film. So sj will be played by many vactresses...In many countries.
- sroussey 2y ago
  This is a great use case. If I were a famous actor, I would require them to take my voice and use AI to translate into another language. They will likely still need another voice actor to have the AI voice follow to get it right. But I would want my voice on every version. Also, AI to change my lip movement so that it does not look dubbed.
chefandy 2y ago
It's seems like the slippery slope argument is saying it would be risky for an AD to say "we need a deep gravelly voice, but more like Donald Sutherland than Robert Loggia. Let's see who we get that has that vibe." I don't see it. What the industry wants to be able to do is say "We want Donald Sutherland but don't want to pay his rates. Let's pay this company that has modeled his voiceover style so we can have our own Donald Sutherland." I think the Marvin Gaye ruling is concerning, especially because no mere mortal could hope to either launch or defend themselves against such an action. However, I don't think those extremes are a reason to just say "oh well. I guess fair use should apply to nearly all derivative use, even commercially. If that means creativity is only commercially viable for AI companies now, so be it." Professional creative expertise can't be replaced by generative AI, and it's important to or society, but copyright is the only set of guardrails on the only viable market for many creative fields. I'd love to abolish copyright, but first is love to live in a society that could support the millions of people that use it as currency.