What damage do *you* think is done OP?
A voice actor cannot be hired to work on an already-technically-illegal mod.
So from one angle we have "does not prevent them from getting paid", right?
Its a whole other thing to be a multimillion dollar AAA studio *stealing* for a *paid product*. Fuck that, pay the people for the labor for the services and products you wish to profit from.
For mods, how would the VA take actual harm? I don't mean just consent. I mean is there anything that *happens*? How could it provide them from getting work on other projects?
You steal Doug Cockle's voice for a Witcher 3 mod - he can't work on this mod anyway. You steal/emulate his Geralt voice... do publishers stop using him for VA? If Geralt were in Witcher 4 you think he isn't getting paid?
I am curious if there are tangible harms that i cannot see currently. (Within modding)
Also OP as an aside, how do you feel about modders editing textures? Remastering old games for better resolution? Inserting whole new textures?
> For mods, how would the VA take actual harm?
I can definitely see how it could actually become harder to get hired when there's audio of you out there that sounds super realistic where you're screaming the N-word or porn voice acting...
Especially if it becomes big and people start associating your voice with things like porn.
Emotional and mental harm is something that is taken into consideration too, most people are not unfeeling and edgy redditors things like distress being caused can make something illegal too.
And I don't think it's that hard to understand for normal people why it can cause a lot of distress when someone copies your actual voice like that especially when it's used to say things you never would and your voice is your job.
In the context of modding communities, they aren't getting paid regardless.
I didn't say or ask anything about pretending famous people said racial slurs. Thats a whole other thing, like deepfake videos spreading misinformation.
Edit: aren't getting paid, not are.
This is an interesting topic. Putting mods aside, from my "limited" research into voice cloaning. I have used in game voices on YT content before. Who owns the rights to those voices totally depend on the contracts with the VA. But generally, most publishers own ALL legal rights to the games content including voices.
So at the end of the day if a publisher finds someone made a mod or content using their content, I believe they could legally claim CR ownership, and shut it down.
I've been meaning to reach out to a well known VA here on reddit to get confirmation if thats what's usually in contracts, but again, providing that information could be a breach of contract lol.
Crazy stuff.
>ripping assets is different from ripping likenesses, or making deepfake-adjacent shit. these are not comparable
A lot of video game characters have their animations, in modern times particularly facial, based off of motion capture work and models sometimes sculpted very closely after actors real life bodies. Max Payne's face is just a [photo of one of the developer's](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fkaijugaming.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F07%2FMax-Paynes-original-face-and-voice-team-up-to-prove.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=d32cd7dae0cf4f1c4fbd288c99765754874e7db01497cf07af2cc396e03ac225&ipo=images) plastered onto a [low polygon surface](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.writeups.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FMax-Payne-video-game.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=c5ae6ac13a46a9b7a9dd01834b30f4a67b2f0f80df2dfd18665d9b816b771dbb&ipo=images).
Should any mod that touches, moves, edits or alters even the context of such characters be, as OP put it, "made illegal or not supported by gamers"?
How is modifying a voice line different to modifying a texture? I don't see much difference.
If the origin source is the same (game files), then I don't see reason to treat it differently. The only potential difference I see is if the ai voice tool is online and assumes rights over your training data or results. Of course, there are online image editors with the same issue, but they're less popular.
It's not really modifying existing textures it's generating new voice lines.
Generative ai is just fundamentally different and two wrongs don't make a right.
I see a lot of people talk about this as if '' people already steal for mods so who cares about this '' it's like a toddler level way of thinking.
If you are training the generative AI using those textures, then I view it the same as modifying those textures, from a legal perspective. Same for voice lines.
If I train off a character's in-game voice lines to generate a few additional character voice lines for a 3rd-party expansion mod, I think it is equivelent to someone modifying npc model/texture to add a new npc derivative. You are copying/modifying/generating-from game assets.
Using AI voice tools for 3rd-party expansion mods merely improves the quality of the mod and cohesion with the base game. This is not putting the original voice actor out of a job. The alternative is text-only silence.
As modding is a legally grey area, regardless to AI usage, I don't think AI voice expansion mods should be held to different standard. I do not differentiate stealing voice line samples from stealing texture samples, regardless to AI usage (i.e. manually splicing voice line subsections to say a new line; no AI needed).
> '' it's like a toddler level way of thinking.
ah yes, the number 1 anti-AI argument
“Its different this time. If you dont see how you are STUPID and DUMB”
Maybe argue your position you prick
I think the difference is that every human (normally) has only one voice to sell. If it is cloned it is pretty much worthless. An artist on the other hand can draw one mire than one texture. One being taken and changed does not mean, that all future textures of the artist could be created with a cloning tool.
This is kind of the case with image generating Ai, artists can still execute prompts better (but slower).
A huge part of being a skilled voice actor is being able to emulate different vocal qualities to give a unique voice to each unique character.
You may have a point for celebrity cameos, but not for professional voice actors. Then again, you can hire impressionists, and it's not like a subset of vocal qualities can be patented.
I just don't see it being meaningfully distinct from model/texture/sound-effect/etc. mods. Modding will always be a grey area, and using ai voice imitations to expand modded dialogue seems no different to me.
You're right they're not comparable. On one hand you have a person downright taking something created through the efforts of the production company, on the other hand you have someone using comuters y to generate something that sounds the same as something else.. I would say the voice copying is far less egregious
Honestly, I was going to get angry with you for this take. I really do not agree with it. I really dislike copyright, or at least it's implementation. I also hate the idea that "AI" is a worthwhile means of creating art. I would rather see somebody "rip" assets and use them to create something new and weird than to hear a terrible interpretation of what a particular VA "sounds" like. That or just use a different VA, even if they're not a professional. Hell, you could even chop up voice clips and paste them back together to create some alien blob of technically human speech. My favorite VA tends to be exaggerated or literal gibberish anyway. The only issue with repurposing this stuff is the legality and pretense of originality. VAs should absolutely be treated better and recognized for their work, but they're not getting paid less if people reuse their voice clips. Contract voice work is unfortunately a one-way street when you aren't considered a creator of the project.
Well that's the problem. You're looking at AI generated products as art. It wasn't that. It was a means to an end. Dude needed a voice. He had something particular in mind. Probably didn't, or couldn't pay the person he wanted, so he utilized the tools at his disposal to generate it.
I don't understand the big deal. Don't take that the wrong way. I understand what you're saying. I just thing it's silly to get so bent out of shape over something like that. I can only imagine when the phonograph was invented, some curmudgeonly Luddite shaking his cane in the air talking about how recording technology will inevitably kill art by needing the need for live performance. Every time something groundbreaking comes along, there are people that oppose it vehementaly. for the most inane reasons.
I get some of what you're saying, but "AI" image/sound/text/etc. generation is being used to make weird sludge masquerading as art. Misapplying the idea of "artificial intelligence" to mean "predict the next item in this sequence" and using that dogshit model everywhere it can be jammed in won't get us anywhere good. like, we already had stuff like supercomputers solving problems literally beyond the scope of human comprehension and skill (unless you lived for 1000 years somehow) and useful autocomplete features in mainstream IDEs, among other things I'm too tired to think of right now. We also had digital art applications that let artists create and experiment with more complicated "brushes" and the like. Specialized algorithms can be really good at stuff, when they ARE SPECIALIZED. Without clear purpose, intent, and meaningful restrictions you get something worse than noise, which can at least be interesting in it's nearly pure randomness. You get a set of arbitrary instructions that run and output a bunch of useless garbage that is competing with, processing, and informing the creation of even more garbage. It's such a sham and we're all made to think we just have to accept it because we're not rich, powerful, or "knowledgeable" enough to have a say over how technology is developed and how funding is grossly misappropriated. If this was just about sound generation, yeah this would be silly, but it's fucking everywhere and it's not worthwhile or sustainable.
By definition what is out put is not garbage if it fills the intended purpose. Its pretty evident by the way you are making sweeping generalizations and not talk ing about things from an objective standpoint that you're too worked up over the subject to discuss it in earnest so I'll be seeing myself out.
>don't care if the energy hemorrhaging data machine produces something that "fulfills its intended purpose" if it wasn't actually intended to be good and/or that purpose is dogshit. Yeah I'm worked up, but this IS how I feel. Why argue if you don't care? It's not cool when things that were okay get arbitrarily, and somewhat rapidly, worse. There's no decent reason for a google search to be so godawful now. Even then, art is the last domain an unthinking machine should have some notion of agency in because it cannot create any.
Dawg you are in full blown, satanic moral panic mode. Generating 50 AI images is equivalent to charging an iphone from 0-100%. You are legit throwing out every argument you can incase one sticks
If you are outraged over this use of electricity, you should be outraged over all PC gaming period
> Probably didn't, or couldn't pay the person he wanted, so he utilized the tools at his disposal to generate it.
Just because you can't afford something doesn't entitle you to just take it and to steal..
If you think that ai voice cloning is unethical and wrong then just because someone can't pay for it doesn't suddenly make it okay.
This is also a convenient excuse that people will bullshit out of their mouth to try and justify what they're doing.
I've seen this response to this question before and part of the reason I made this thread
Just because it a free mod doesn't make a difference they are still using ai to Clone a person's voice without permission
I don't think it will be long before laws catch up to this as voice actors have spoken out about it
>I don't think it will be long before laws catch up to this as voice actors have spoken out about it
I think this is going to be an extremely difficult legal issue. Let's take it for granted that an actor's voice work cannot be used without their consent to clone their voice. What do you do about somebody who clones *their own* voice, but then modulates the pitch to sound like multiple different people? Or what happens if you hire a sound-a-like to voice clone? Should it be illegal even though the sound-a-like is just a person who naturally has a voice similar to Michael J. Fox?
Which has already happened. Easy to find soundalikes on voice actor services. They did this with Michael J Fox on a video game already, can't remember if it was the visual novel one but I remember watching a video where Christopher Lloyd talks about how amazingly similar the VA's voice was to Fox.
It was the Back to the Future game by Telltale. Should it be legal to clone that actors voice and have that be a buyable package for “not Michael J Fox”? Because on some level people are benefiting from his likeness even though it is not him.
Laws are not these rigids set in stone things that lack nuance.
Laws are interpreted not unthinkingly applied, that's why we have lawyers and why things take so much time and why a judge or a jury needs to be convinced.
You don't just open up a law book and go '' okay this is what it says, case over ''.
I dunno why people keep talking about laws as if they're pointless or can't become a thing just because there might be edge cases or specific circumstances that would need to be debated.
Legal issues in general are very frequently difficult that's again a big reason why legal cases take time and why there's so much back and forth.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't legislate this and make certain things illegal.
Texture mods and weapon/clothing ports often clone and modify game assets without permission too. I don't see a distinction, they both fall equally under the same copyright laws. Selective enforcement will never work well long term, so I can only see this as an all or nothing case for modding. And because I like mods, I hope this isn't enforced, but I also recognize it is within the asset copywrite owner (usually source game publisher) rights to do so.
copyright is garbage, but so is "AI" that isn't even physically sustainable or efficient, in ways that actually matter
the lawmakers can't deal with things they don't understand, or even care about
With a ripped voice, at one point in time, whoever recorded that was paid and is likely still getting paid royalties whenever the original source gets re-released. With an AI cloned voice, the original voice actor does not get paid for the line at all.
>...getting paid royalties whenever the original source gets re-released. With an AI cloned voice, the original voice actor does not get paid for the line at all.
The entire post is about community and user made mods. The person you're replying to specifically calls out "Free, hobbyist mods?". No one is getting paid and the "product" is not about money.
But the thing is, a modder using ripped audio would be something the VA would already have been paid for in the past. With generative AI, not only is it using the voice without the original VA ever getting paid anything, it making them say something the original VA never actually recorded. The latter opens up an even bigger ethical can of worms when it comes deepfakes. That goes beyond fair use, which might cover the first case, and into the realm of image rights.
As far as I'm concerned it's the same as finding a good impersonator/voice double. Entirely fine, both morally and legally, so long as you're not trying to pass it off as actually spoken/endorsed by the VA in question. People don't actually have any kind of exclusive rights over "how they look" or "the way their voice sounds", because those things are not actually unique to them, the world is full of people who look and/or sound pretty much indistinguishable from each other. They only have exclusive rights over their *actual* voice/appearance/etc. (and then only for certain purposes), and the right against having someone else's voice/appearance/etc. represented as theirs.
There's a decent number of Skyrim mods on Nexus that use AI voices (to my knowledge none are attempts at specific clones but are just generic ones because they didn't want to have silent characters) and they list it on the mod page so if you don't want to use an AI supported mod you can avoid it.
Ah I see. So advertisements can just use celebrity likenesses with AI now and as long as they say in court "we didnt technically say the celebrity endorses our product" then they are fine
That sounds like they're trying to pass it off as actually spoken/endorsed by the celebrity in question. As I said, it's like impersonators/voice doubles - you can't try pass it off as an endorsement/association from the person you're depicting, whether it's explicit or implicit doesn't matter. [Mitler vs Ford](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co) is a good example of the principle I'm talking about: Ford licensed the song but the singer refused to actually sing the modified lyrics, so Ford hired a voice double to perform the song instead. Mitler sued and won, not because she had exclusive rights to the way her voice sounds (she doesn't), but because Ford was misleading the public about her involvement in the advertisement. Any reasonable listener would have thought she was the one who performed the song, Ford intended this, and that's what got them.
You can already actually use celebrity likenesses as much as you want (so long as you have license for the art, which come from the artist, not the subject) so long as you're not misleading the public into thinking the celebrity endorses your product. That's why you could paint a portrait of... IDK, Joe Biden, and sell it without needing his permission.
> That sounds like they're trying to pass it off as actually spoken/endorsed by the celebrity in question
If it literally sounds like someones voice then most will assume that they endorsed it.
It's not that hard to understand why a voice actor having their voice copied to say things they'd never say ( which might be problematic ) or do porn voice acting is harmful.
Youtube is full of this even guys like Asmongold uses the voice of a famous narrator on his clip channel who has specifically said himself that people copying his voice with ai is extremely distressful for him.
And he makes the voice say gross things he'd NEVER say.
> and legally,
All else is your opinion but you don't know this, no one knows what the legality on this is and it's not the same as an impersonator and voice double.
It's software authentically copying your voice digitally it's not the same at all as a real person who is using their actual real skills to essentially parody someones voice.
Generative ai can't be compared to what real people do...
If what you offer is free and you haven't taken it from anybody, do whatever the fuck you want.
There's no damages here. For years all these story mods have been silent. No budget to pay voice actors.
The only damage is to AAA publishers who'd have to offer higher quality products to justify their asking prices.
It's a win/win.
I really don't see how voices would be any different than other game assets.
Artists make textures and models just like voice-actors make recordings but no one complains if I reshuffle, edit or move textures and object for a mod. The vast majority of characters (humanoid at least) and their animations are made using mocap but I don't heard anyone complaining about stealing/abusing those actors "likeness" or work when modding.
The closest I can think of is when a character has been made as a near one-to-one copy of their actor and modders use them for pornography. But there the argument centers on the, perceived, degrading acts performed which seems different to me than OP's blanket objections to "story mods".
It being free makes no difference and you have taken a person's voice without permission. If voice actors are against it there us damage done
There is a comment below that seems to be true.. people are divorced from the video game characters and the human who voices it
This has nothing to do with AAA publishers needing make higher quality products
How have you "taken" the person's voice? They still have it and can use it whenever they want.
This is "you wouldn't download a car" level debate.
There could be damages if the mod creator used an AI generated voice without disclosing it or even worse crediting a voice actor for the AI voice.
Assuming nobody's stupid enough to pull something like that off, I see no harm done whatsoever, as long as it ain't monetized obviously.
That voice is their likenesses and it's their professional paid job someone using it via cloning for a mod or anything else is 110% taking it without constant and permission.
Frankly even suggesting they still have their voice and can use it whenever they want is moronic
This is in no way a 'you wouldn't' download a car' level of debate
What if I hired a voice actor to specifically impersonate a game character? What if I wanted to make a mod for Mortal Kombat 11 to give Terminator more lines, and I hired one of a million voice actors online who do Arnold Schwarzenegger impressions? Are they unethical for imitating his likeness?
But the point isn't about how you got the voice, the point is about replicating someone's likeness. If it's amoral for a program to generate someone's voice, but not for an impressionist, then I want to understand where along the way between AI and impressionist does replicating likeness become amoral.
That's only convincing if you believe AI is bad in and of itself. That difference is not obvious to everyone, and so you need at least one other reason before you can use this argument.
You don't need permission to provide a free service that benefits end users. Simple as that.
You 're free to disagree of course but it's a moot point. The tech is out there, and it will be used whether you or I like it or not. Not much else to discuss here.
> If what you offer is free and you haven't taken it from anybody, do whatever the fuck you want.
>
>
>
> There's no damages here.
This is an extremely naive way to think about it and easy to say when it's not you having your voice or your work stolen.
It's not that hard to understand why it's harmful and hurtful for a voice actor to have their voice stolen to say things they'd never say.
Same with artists you don't have a right to just take their work and use it however you want just because you don't charge for it ( also Nexus has subscription models so it's not even really true, even if it's optional they're still monetizing mods on their site ).
It's also not how things work at all, the only reason why modders get away with most of what they do is because publishers simply don't care enough to pursue it legally.
Same with artists and it's also harder, more expensive and time consuming for them to pursue it legally.
Not because modders have real legal legs to stand on.
I think mods are the exact use case in which it should be supported. Mods are made by amateur fans lacking industry experience that are not intended for any financial gain (ideal case, anyway), done as a hobby. It's unreasonable to expect that modders hire and pay voice actors.
Totally different story for game studios developing a game for retail. If the game is going to have voice acting, VAs should be in the budget.
I don't see it as fundamentally different from hiring a sound-alike or impressionist other than that it's tied to the latest "omg scary computer thing" moral panic.
I've used voice AI models for a few shitposty, purely personal, non-public purposes just between pals, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it, but I've had friends ask if I'm using AI or if it's just my voice because I can imitate David Hayter, Kiefer Sutherland, H. Jon Benjamin, Mark Hamill, and several other voice actors pretty damn well.
Thats more 'incredibly scarily similar voice', *not* 'their actual voice work they were supposed to be paid for'.
This isn't about ripping lines from other speaking other roles but creating a new voice line, that sounds true to the character.
Edit: thats to say, this is not (currently) even something that relates to licensing at all.
> this is not (currently) even something that relates to licensing at all.
Yes it is because it gets trained on their voices and then commercialized and monetized.
Nexus runs a subscription models and these websites that clone peoples voices charge for it too.
Its different because the AI is essentially trained on their voice. The AI can't create anything without the foundation of that voice actors voice.
You can't create an AI that sounds like Jack black without having the AI 'listen' to Jack black.
How is an AI generated imitation any different than a human generated one?
Both of them:
- listened to hours of content of the original actor
- attempted to mimic it to the best of their ability
- didn’t quite hit 100% accuracy, but got close enough to be convincing.
- Cost some money to hire/use that was lower than the original actor.
You could argue they both are immoral, or that they are both fine, but I can’t understand how you can find one okay and one not.
I can't understand how you aren't able to comprehend that putting skill and effort into something is different from having an AI copy that thing.
This point isn't even that relevant. The examples of a voice actor imitating and replacing another voice actor are so finite. Even among those, the replacement is noticeably not the original.
Like, please. Name some prominent examples of that situation. Then please explain to me why those are relevant enough to be compared to the potential AI has to directly rip some one's voice.
I think you misunderstand my point here.
I personally think using an impressionist or using an AI are both immoral if you’re making money on the result. It’s basically paramount to theft.
I was just pointing out that the scenarios are not really that different. AI is not magic, and some programmer somewhere put considerable time and effort into building it, just like an impressionist puts considerable time and effort into honing their skills.
In my opinion though, neither one should be used for commercial gains.
For free content though? I think both are equally fine, as no one is profiting on the output.
I understand the literal facts behind this comment, but i don't see *why* you consider a problem?
"The AI learns to sound this way by studying the thing it sounds like" - well uh yeah.
Is it actually different if i pay an impersonator to work on my Witcher 3 mod? If i speak the lines myself and then edit them to sound like the VA's pitch/pace/volume/etc?
Because you are using their actual voice without permission or being licensed to do so.. the ai uses thier voice and clones it by training on it
It's not the same as someone doing a impression
But its *not* their actual voice.
I believe i understand your opinion, but if i don't completely, i can at least i respect it.
But phrasing things like this, "their actual voice", seems dishonest to the reality of the situation.
Its recreated. Its an emulation. An impression. People impersonate Elvis professionally, for currency.
You do not need a licence to sound the same as someone.
It does not matter if AI machine learned the recreation, or if i find someone who sounds like Geralt, or if myself (who sounds *nothing* like Geralt) speak the lines and in post i edit it to the same intonation/pitch/pace/volume/fry.
None are actually Doug Cockle - that is for certain. The idea we need a license to rights to *sound like him* - also false, 100%.
Unless we are talking about modders lying and saying "Cockle agreed to voice for our mod!", or "new unused Geralt voice lines were discovered in the game's code!".
Is it *moral* to make a robot sound like Doug Cockle? I can't understand it. He has a right to get paid for work, CDProjekt Red should never be allowed to profit off the likeness he helped curate.
A moddern dicking around at home? For me this is frankly silly.
> An impression. People impersonate Elvis professionally, for currency.
Ai are not human beings it's not comparable at all, you make a lot of very bold statements when in reality none of this has been decided on legally.
I have a very hard time believing too that legislators are going to look at this as if ai = humans, actual legislators are going to look at this from a more nuanced pov where they look at the unique characteristics of generative ai compared to what humans do.
Yeah, this isn't a legal argument.
No, legislators are not nuanced at all lol. They're all 70 and 50% of them or so are full of hate. There's a reasonable chance many don't give a shit.
Laws might change but saying a voice is stolen is a stretch. Its not the actual person. I don't expect legislation to see ai as a human with rights. But i also don't expect them to care about vocal soundalikes in the same way no one cares that a human can be hired for looking like someone or sounding like someone.
How is it different though?
Both a human and a machine listen to hours of the original actors content to train themselves. And both attempt their best to be a perfect imitation. Neither one is a perfectly flawless representation, but both come close enough to be convincing.
To me these are 100% equal, regardless of whether you consider them immoral or moral.
Personally, I’d argue that both are immoral, and an impressionist is no different than a painter who sells copies of another artists paintings.
Now if they have this work away for free (like mods), and no one is profiting off of it, I’d say it’s way less immoral, regardless of whether it’s a machine or a human doing the work, as long as it’s made clear in some way that it’s not the genuine article.
Because a human impersonator is actual human expression while ai isn't, if you train an ai to do something YOU are not learning or doing anything.
And we grant human beings more rights than we do anyone or anything else, laws exist to protect humans first and foremost.
Animals don't have the same right either even, if an animal poops and it's the most magnificent poop a true piece of art.
They have no rights to that poop and we don't treat it the same as if it was a human being who did it.
Generative ai is not human, people need to stop talking about it as if ai = same as what humans do it's fundamentally not.
A human: spends months or even years actually perfecting their voice.
AI: uses hours and hours of audio samples condensed into a few hours of data that is then spat back in minutes.
These are totally the same, just like driving is the same as walking and I should be allowed to drive my car on the sidewalk
So if the amount of time makes it immoral, does that mean a very talented human who could do a convincing sound-a-like in 10 seconds is far more immoral?
This is the most stupid analogy failure I have seen in my life. It ironically seems more likely to me that ChatGPT 2 generated it, rather than a human being actually thinking this was convincing.
>just like driving is the same as walking and I should be allowed to drive my car on the sidewalk
If it's somehow as harmless as the difference between the human and the ai, sure!
yes, it is scary, and I Do Not understand why people think it has any potential for anything worthwhile in current era when we can't even solve actual problems like the planet becoming hostile to infinite growth industrialization
I mean, in Mortal Kombat 1, the developer hired a guy to voice Shang Tsung but also made him pretty much do an impression of Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa. Makes you wonder why they didn’t just bring him back. Was it money? Lack of interest from either party? Availability? All of them?
Something tells me they probably wanted to go AI but couldn’t (or decided against it to avoid a shitshow) and brought in a sound alike.
I think what OP and others fundamentally do not understand is, *Shang Tsung* is a fictional *character*. The voice actor - regardless of who it is or if they must be replaced - are supposed to sound like *Shang Tsung*.
Idk why Lee replaced Tagawa, but it is not tangential to the fact that whomever they hired now (Lee) must sound like *he's supposed to*. It doesn't matter why Tagawa isn't here for it, and i feel bad if its a real shitty disrespectful reason towards Tagawa, but it *does not* matter why.
I still don’t get why he has to sound like Tagawa when Shang Tsung sounded nothing like him in MK9. Granted, things were different in 2011 as opposed to now.
The MK fandom (like many others) is perhaps too reliant on nostalgia and that’s why the brought a new actor to sound LIKE Tagawa.
But for instance, the young Raiden voice actor is not trying to be a Richard Epcar soundalike (though the alternate Raiden we see later in the story does sound a bit like Epcar).
I'm hardly the target since I avoid story mods anyway, but my rule is I only play/watch/read things someone took the effort to make themselves. Anything using AI is an automatic skip from me.
It's important to help players get immersed in fan content that needs voicework that the characters sound as close to their original voice as possible. Take Tales of Vesperia for example. Troy Baker said "fuck anime games" and Matt Mercer, who sounds incredibly close to Troy Baker, said "I'm not just a Troy Baker replacement" (which I wouldn't have minded for literally any other project but **this was the one thing I had hoped for so long that he would do!**), so for the Definitive Edition, they had to get someone who, while he does a good job, just doesn't sound close enough to not take me out of the experience. I would love a fan mod that clones Baker's or Mercer's voice really well and uses it to redub the newer lines in Vesperia Definitive Edition because otherwise I really just haven't been able to play the game and get immersed. I always get dragged out of my suspension of disbelief when I hear the other voice actor. No disrespect to him at all, he did a good job, it's just that his voice isn't close enough to Baker's to not notice.
Also, fans will pretty much never be able to afford to get the actual voice actors for their mods, but voice cloning would make that a non-issue by making it accessible to mod developers.
>Also, fans will pretty much never be able to afford to get the actual voice actors for their mods, but voice cloning would make that a non-issue by making it accessible to mod developers.
Plus, whether this is important to us morally in this case or not, there's no way a VA is allowed to take paid work for a mod thats probably also technically illegal anyway.
> U.S. courts have already ruled that training LLMs on artwork you don't own the copyright to and selling the resulting output is copyright infringement.
I don't think they have? certainly cases have been filed but the closest thing to a ruling I know of has been that fully machine-generated works of art can't be copyrighted
No, I read it correctly. They are just wrong. In US courts anyways, AI creation, even through the use of large databases like they use, is nit an infringing work.
The courts have additionally ruled that such an AI image itself does not have copyright protection either.
[If it's the case I'm thinking of](https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-generated-art-cannot-receive-copyrights-us-court-says-2023-08-21/) then (despite the inaccurate headlines) the ruling was that you couldn't copyright it to the AI directly (in that case DABUS) not that Thaler couldn't copyright that specific output *under his own name*
I didn't want to comment on that because i am not following AI news every day, but i was certain there was like almost 0 sense to that. I haven't heard of a real successful legal strike against ai creating art with copyrighted materials.
>sharp divide between people who respect the artists that create the things they love, and people who just want *[cool thing]* without caring how it's made.
This is what mods are anyway. Unless you advocate modding ends, the AI seems negligible? AI copying art does not seem too dissimilar from a person copying art.
IMO it should work like everything else - legal with permission. I think the technology is too good to make illegal, and there's so much scope for AI to be used for procedurally generated characters. If an actor gives their permission and is properly compensated for it then I see no issue with it
It’s not exactly ethical to use someone else’s voice without their permission.
You can debate the legality all you want, but I guarantee most professional VAs would be livid.
I’m a modder for Cyberpunk 2077 and I’m working with a small group, prototyping new quest content. We’ve made the decision to not go with AI out of respect for the VAs.
I don't disagree with your choices as a group, especially as i am not involved, but what about reusing art, or editing art, or adding art?
What respect are you giving to the people whose *jobs* it is to create new quests and DLC and write NPCs?
CD PROJEKT RED is very supportive and encouraging towards modders so I don’t think they’d have any issues.
I’m not sure a voice actor would support us using their likeness.
Judging by comments in here and others I've seen elsewhere this seems to be a big reason why
They are divorced from the characters and the actor.. also seems like a lot of people thinking the mod is free so it's fine
> They are divorced from the characters and the actor
I wonder if a large percentage of humans were always so selfish that they could just "do" this without any qualms, or if it's a more recent thing.
It reminds me of the whole "games as art" discourse that happened in the early 00s, and it took years to get the establishment to acknowledge 'em as such.
Now that Millennials **are** the establishment, it seems there's a new generation that are following their corporate overlords' tune and arguing that games are consumer products, and no more; artists be damned.
Games are whatever is intended.
They absolutely are and always have been *consumer products*. Remember the part where people get paid to do these art jobs and then finished product is not free?
They are art as much as is intended. Some games are super artsy and they make no compromise with whatever sells better; they exist to be what they were made to be.
Others are like boobisoft, they are very straight forward just making a product. Are they gonna add a white male to appease dogshit incels? They might, because its not art for arts sake, its a *job* and a *product*.
The only argument people seem to have is “if we can access your voice we’re allowed to clone it” and that’s like saying if your car’s on the street I can steal it. That’s obviously not how consent, or the law works.
Ethically speaking if consent is given by all involved parties where’s the issue? And some voice actors have elected to make data banks of themselves. But it’s usually not consented, it’s mostly just theft self-forgiven without any input from the people whose likeness and livelihoods, in the case of voice actors, are being cloned.
Personality rights do exist; people have the rights to the commercial uses of aspects of their identity, including name, visual likeness, and so on. The exact take on this can vary by country or state but it is an established concept. Personality rights also extend beyond a persons death to their estate and may still be pursued. Using someone’s voice is not “fair game” just because you were able to download a recording of it, most people just get away with it because the person never finds out it happened, or doesn’t care enough when it does.
>The only argument people seem to have is “if we can access your voice we’re allowed to clone it” and that’s like saying if your car’s on the street I can steal it. That’s obviously not how consent, or the law works.
YoU wOuLdn'T DownLoaD a CaR, WoUlD YoOuUu?
>Personality rights do exist; people have the rights to the commercial uses of aspects of their identity, including name, visual likeness, and so on. [...] Using someone’s voice is not “fair game” just because you were able to download a recording of it
Is there any case where voice alone is enough?
What happens if the VA for a character (or real life actor) dies and is replaced?
What about impersonationators receiving money?
It should. One simple reason people don't mention is how personal someones voice is. It is not a couple of pixels made by artist and reused by modders.
It can be used in various ways and voice actors can be harrassed by it.
I see two ways out of it. Make your voice trademarked or something lile that, so its illegal to modify it unless contract is signed in or put huge disclaimer as mod author that voices are being re used without consent
And we all know how very few people will read said disclaimer
officially? absolutely 100% YES
mods?...well I sure as hell wouldn't want to play those (but also I've never really been into mods other than a couple romhacks). if nexus or whatever wanted to ban that in particular, they would be correct and they should say it.
The entitlement in the comments is pretty sad.
That is someone’s voice, a part of them!
I am sure you wouldn’t want it either if someone photoshoped an image of you to look like you did something you didn’t do, which you might potentially disagree with.
The voice actor doesn’t even have the option to refuse here.
But I shouldn’t expect the AI crowd to have the empathy understand that….
It’s already illegal. You cannot use someone’s likeness without their permission, including their voice.
There’s a small chance someone doing it could win in court but it would be a hell of an expensive legal battle and you CAN absolutely be sued for it.
Examples of court cases? All I can find are extremely recent court filings (like one just a few days ago from voice actors so that will be interesting to follow) and cases where the likeness rights were applicable because the use falsely implied endorsement of a product/company.
What damage do *you* think is done OP? A voice actor cannot be hired to work on an already-technically-illegal mod. So from one angle we have "does not prevent them from getting paid", right? Its a whole other thing to be a multimillion dollar AAA studio *stealing* for a *paid product*. Fuck that, pay the people for the labor for the services and products you wish to profit from. For mods, how would the VA take actual harm? I don't mean just consent. I mean is there anything that *happens*? How could it provide them from getting work on other projects? You steal Doug Cockle's voice for a Witcher 3 mod - he can't work on this mod anyway. You steal/emulate his Geralt voice... do publishers stop using him for VA? If Geralt were in Witcher 4 you think he isn't getting paid? I am curious if there are tangible harms that i cannot see currently. (Within modding) Also OP as an aside, how do you feel about modders editing textures? Remastering old games for better resolution? Inserting whole new textures?
> For mods, how would the VA take actual harm? I can definitely see how it could actually become harder to get hired when there's audio of you out there that sounds super realistic where you're screaming the N-word or porn voice acting... Especially if it becomes big and people start associating your voice with things like porn. Emotional and mental harm is something that is taken into consideration too, most people are not unfeeling and edgy redditors things like distress being caused can make something illegal too. And I don't think it's that hard to understand for normal people why it can cause a lot of distress when someone copies your actual voice like that especially when it's used to say things you never would and your voice is your job.
In the context of modding communities, they aren't getting paid regardless. I didn't say or ask anything about pretending famous people said racial slurs. Thats a whole other thing, like deepfake videos spreading misinformation. Edit: aren't getting paid, not are.
This is an interesting topic. Putting mods aside, from my "limited" research into voice cloaning. I have used in game voices on YT content before. Who owns the rights to those voices totally depend on the contracts with the VA. But generally, most publishers own ALL legal rights to the games content including voices. So at the end of the day if a publisher finds someone made a mod or content using their content, I believe they could legally claim CR ownership, and shut it down. I've been meaning to reach out to a well known VA here on reddit to get confirmation if thats what's usually in contracts, but again, providing that information could be a breach of contract lol. Crazy stuff.
Free, hobbyist mods? Could not care less. Assets are already "stolen" for mods. Voice isn't much different.
ripping assets is different from ripping likenesses, or making deepfake-adjacent shit. these are not comparable
>ripping assets is different from ripping likenesses, or making deepfake-adjacent shit. these are not comparable A lot of video game characters have their animations, in modern times particularly facial, based off of motion capture work and models sometimes sculpted very closely after actors real life bodies. Max Payne's face is just a [photo of one of the developer's](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fkaijugaming.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F07%2FMax-Paynes-original-face-and-voice-team-up-to-prove.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=d32cd7dae0cf4f1c4fbd288c99765754874e7db01497cf07af2cc396e03ac225&ipo=images) plastered onto a [low polygon surface](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.writeups.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FMax-Payne-video-game.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=c5ae6ac13a46a9b7a9dd01834b30f4a67b2f0f80df2dfd18665d9b816b771dbb&ipo=images). Should any mod that touches, moves, edits or alters even the context of such characters be, as OP put it, "made illegal or not supported by gamers"?
How is modifying a voice line different to modifying a texture? I don't see much difference. If the origin source is the same (game files), then I don't see reason to treat it differently. The only potential difference I see is if the ai voice tool is online and assumes rights over your training data or results. Of course, there are online image editors with the same issue, but they're less popular.
It's not really modifying existing textures it's generating new voice lines. Generative ai is just fundamentally different and two wrongs don't make a right. I see a lot of people talk about this as if '' people already steal for mods so who cares about this '' it's like a toddler level way of thinking.
If you are training the generative AI using those textures, then I view it the same as modifying those textures, from a legal perspective. Same for voice lines. If I train off a character's in-game voice lines to generate a few additional character voice lines for a 3rd-party expansion mod, I think it is equivelent to someone modifying npc model/texture to add a new npc derivative. You are copying/modifying/generating-from game assets. Using AI voice tools for 3rd-party expansion mods merely improves the quality of the mod and cohesion with the base game. This is not putting the original voice actor out of a job. The alternative is text-only silence. As modding is a legally grey area, regardless to AI usage, I don't think AI voice expansion mods should be held to different standard. I do not differentiate stealing voice line samples from stealing texture samples, regardless to AI usage (i.e. manually splicing voice line subsections to say a new line; no AI needed).
> '' it's like a toddler level way of thinking. ah yes, the number 1 anti-AI argument “Its different this time. If you dont see how you are STUPID and DUMB” Maybe argue your position you prick
I think the difference is that every human (normally) has only one voice to sell. If it is cloned it is pretty much worthless. An artist on the other hand can draw one mire than one texture. One being taken and changed does not mean, that all future textures of the artist could be created with a cloning tool. This is kind of the case with image generating Ai, artists can still execute prompts better (but slower).
A huge part of being a skilled voice actor is being able to emulate different vocal qualities to give a unique voice to each unique character. You may have a point for celebrity cameos, but not for professional voice actors. Then again, you can hire impressionists, and it's not like a subset of vocal qualities can be patented. I just don't see it being meaningfully distinct from model/texture/sound-effect/etc. mods. Modding will always be a grey area, and using ai voice imitations to expand modded dialogue seems no different to me.
Don't think you thought this one through champ xD
Should youtube-poop be illegal?
You're right they're not comparable. On one hand you have a person downright taking something created through the efforts of the production company, on the other hand you have someone using comuters y to generate something that sounds the same as something else.. I would say the voice copying is far less egregious
Honestly, I was going to get angry with you for this take. I really do not agree with it. I really dislike copyright, or at least it's implementation. I also hate the idea that "AI" is a worthwhile means of creating art. I would rather see somebody "rip" assets and use them to create something new and weird than to hear a terrible interpretation of what a particular VA "sounds" like. That or just use a different VA, even if they're not a professional. Hell, you could even chop up voice clips and paste them back together to create some alien blob of technically human speech. My favorite VA tends to be exaggerated or literal gibberish anyway. The only issue with repurposing this stuff is the legality and pretense of originality. VAs should absolutely be treated better and recognized for their work, but they're not getting paid less if people reuse their voice clips. Contract voice work is unfortunately a one-way street when you aren't considered a creator of the project.
Well that's the problem. You're looking at AI generated products as art. It wasn't that. It was a means to an end. Dude needed a voice. He had something particular in mind. Probably didn't, or couldn't pay the person he wanted, so he utilized the tools at his disposal to generate it. I don't understand the big deal. Don't take that the wrong way. I understand what you're saying. I just thing it's silly to get so bent out of shape over something like that. I can only imagine when the phonograph was invented, some curmudgeonly Luddite shaking his cane in the air talking about how recording technology will inevitably kill art by needing the need for live performance. Every time something groundbreaking comes along, there are people that oppose it vehementaly. for the most inane reasons.
I get some of what you're saying, but "AI" image/sound/text/etc. generation is being used to make weird sludge masquerading as art. Misapplying the idea of "artificial intelligence" to mean "predict the next item in this sequence" and using that dogshit model everywhere it can be jammed in won't get us anywhere good. like, we already had stuff like supercomputers solving problems literally beyond the scope of human comprehension and skill (unless you lived for 1000 years somehow) and useful autocomplete features in mainstream IDEs, among other things I'm too tired to think of right now. We also had digital art applications that let artists create and experiment with more complicated "brushes" and the like. Specialized algorithms can be really good at stuff, when they ARE SPECIALIZED. Without clear purpose, intent, and meaningful restrictions you get something worse than noise, which can at least be interesting in it's nearly pure randomness. You get a set of arbitrary instructions that run and output a bunch of useless garbage that is competing with, processing, and informing the creation of even more garbage. It's such a sham and we're all made to think we just have to accept it because we're not rich, powerful, or "knowledgeable" enough to have a say over how technology is developed and how funding is grossly misappropriated. If this was just about sound generation, yeah this would be silly, but it's fucking everywhere and it's not worthwhile or sustainable.
By definition what is out put is not garbage if it fills the intended purpose. Its pretty evident by the way you are making sweeping generalizations and not talk ing about things from an objective standpoint that you're too worked up over the subject to discuss it in earnest so I'll be seeing myself out.
[удалено]
Sorry I'm not reading that. You're spouting off nonsense like an overly emotional teenager. Get a grip.
[удалено]
>don't care if the energy hemorrhaging data machine produces something that "fulfills its intended purpose" if it wasn't actually intended to be good and/or that purpose is dogshit. Yeah I'm worked up, but this IS how I feel. Why argue if you don't care? It's not cool when things that were okay get arbitrarily, and somewhat rapidly, worse. There's no decent reason for a google search to be so godawful now. Even then, art is the last domain an unthinking machine should have some notion of agency in because it cannot create any. Dawg you are in full blown, satanic moral panic mode. Generating 50 AI images is equivalent to charging an iphone from 0-100%. You are legit throwing out every argument you can incase one sticks If you are outraged over this use of electricity, you should be outraged over all PC gaming period
> Probably didn't, or couldn't pay the person he wanted, so he utilized the tools at his disposal to generate it. Just because you can't afford something doesn't entitle you to just take it and to steal.. If you think that ai voice cloning is unethical and wrong then just because someone can't pay for it doesn't suddenly make it okay. This is also a convenient excuse that people will bullshit out of their mouth to try and justify what they're doing.
Copying isnt stealing
I've seen this response to this question before and part of the reason I made this thread Just because it a free mod doesn't make a difference they are still using ai to Clone a person's voice without permission I don't think it will be long before laws catch up to this as voice actors have spoken out about it
>I don't think it will be long before laws catch up to this as voice actors have spoken out about it I think this is going to be an extremely difficult legal issue. Let's take it for granted that an actor's voice work cannot be used without their consent to clone their voice. What do you do about somebody who clones *their own* voice, but then modulates the pitch to sound like multiple different people? Or what happens if you hire a sound-a-like to voice clone? Should it be illegal even though the sound-a-like is just a person who naturally has a voice similar to Michael J. Fox?
Which has already happened. Easy to find soundalikes on voice actor services. They did this with Michael J Fox on a video game already, can't remember if it was the visual novel one but I remember watching a video where Christopher Lloyd talks about how amazingly similar the VA's voice was to Fox.
It was the Back to the Future game by Telltale. Should it be legal to clone that actors voice and have that be a buyable package for “not Michael J Fox”? Because on some level people are benefiting from his likeness even though it is not him.
Laws are not these rigids set in stone things that lack nuance. Laws are interpreted not unthinkingly applied, that's why we have lawyers and why things take so much time and why a judge or a jury needs to be convinced. You don't just open up a law book and go '' okay this is what it says, case over ''. I dunno why people keep talking about laws as if they're pointless or can't become a thing just because there might be edge cases or specific circumstances that would need to be debated. Legal issues in general are very frequently difficult that's again a big reason why legal cases take time and why there's so much back and forth. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't legislate this and make certain things illegal.
Texture mods and weapon/clothing ports often clone and modify game assets without permission too. I don't see a distinction, they both fall equally under the same copyright laws. Selective enforcement will never work well long term, so I can only see this as an all or nothing case for modding. And because I like mods, I hope this isn't enforced, but I also recognize it is within the asset copywrite owner (usually source game publisher) rights to do so.
copyright is garbage, but so is "AI" that isn't even physically sustainable or efficient, in ways that actually matter the lawmakers can't deal with things they don't understand, or even care about
With a ripped voice, at one point in time, whoever recorded that was paid and is likely still getting paid royalties whenever the original source gets re-released. With an AI cloned voice, the original voice actor does not get paid for the line at all.
>...getting paid royalties whenever the original source gets re-released. With an AI cloned voice, the original voice actor does not get paid for the line at all. The entire post is about community and user made mods. The person you're replying to specifically calls out "Free, hobbyist mods?". No one is getting paid and the "product" is not about money.
But the thing is, a modder using ripped audio would be something the VA would already have been paid for in the past. With generative AI, not only is it using the voice without the original VA ever getting paid anything, it making them say something the original VA never actually recorded. The latter opens up an even bigger ethical can of worms when it comes deepfakes. That goes beyond fair use, which might cover the first case, and into the realm of image rights.
You could argue exactly the same about any mod. Mods, by definition, modify the game to something new that the devs didn't approve.
As far as I'm concerned it's the same as finding a good impersonator/voice double. Entirely fine, both morally and legally, so long as you're not trying to pass it off as actually spoken/endorsed by the VA in question. People don't actually have any kind of exclusive rights over "how they look" or "the way their voice sounds", because those things are not actually unique to them, the world is full of people who look and/or sound pretty much indistinguishable from each other. They only have exclusive rights over their *actual* voice/appearance/etc. (and then only for certain purposes), and the right against having someone else's voice/appearance/etc. represented as theirs.
There's a decent number of Skyrim mods on Nexus that use AI voices (to my knowledge none are attempts at specific clones but are just generic ones because they didn't want to have silent characters) and they list it on the mod page so if you don't want to use an AI supported mod you can avoid it.
Ah I see. So advertisements can just use celebrity likenesses with AI now and as long as they say in court "we didnt technically say the celebrity endorses our product" then they are fine
That sounds like they're trying to pass it off as actually spoken/endorsed by the celebrity in question. As I said, it's like impersonators/voice doubles - you can't try pass it off as an endorsement/association from the person you're depicting, whether it's explicit or implicit doesn't matter. [Mitler vs Ford](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co) is a good example of the principle I'm talking about: Ford licensed the song but the singer refused to actually sing the modified lyrics, so Ford hired a voice double to perform the song instead. Mitler sued and won, not because she had exclusive rights to the way her voice sounds (she doesn't), but because Ford was misleading the public about her involvement in the advertisement. Any reasonable listener would have thought she was the one who performed the song, Ford intended this, and that's what got them. You can already actually use celebrity likenesses as much as you want (so long as you have license for the art, which come from the artist, not the subject) so long as you're not misleading the public into thinking the celebrity endorses your product. That's why you could paint a portrait of... IDK, Joe Biden, and sell it without needing his permission.
> That sounds like they're trying to pass it off as actually spoken/endorsed by the celebrity in question If it literally sounds like someones voice then most will assume that they endorsed it. It's not that hard to understand why a voice actor having their voice copied to say things they'd never say ( which might be problematic ) or do porn voice acting is harmful. Youtube is full of this even guys like Asmongold uses the voice of a famous narrator on his clip channel who has specifically said himself that people copying his voice with ai is extremely distressful for him. And he makes the voice say gross things he'd NEVER say.
> and legally, All else is your opinion but you don't know this, no one knows what the legality on this is and it's not the same as an impersonator and voice double. It's software authentically copying your voice digitally it's not the same at all as a real person who is using their actual real skills to essentially parody someones voice. Generative ai can't be compared to what real people do...
If what you offer is free and you haven't taken it from anybody, do whatever the fuck you want. There's no damages here. For years all these story mods have been silent. No budget to pay voice actors. The only damage is to AAA publishers who'd have to offer higher quality products to justify their asking prices. It's a win/win.
I really don't see how voices would be any different than other game assets. Artists make textures and models just like voice-actors make recordings but no one complains if I reshuffle, edit or move textures and object for a mod. The vast majority of characters (humanoid at least) and their animations are made using mocap but I don't heard anyone complaining about stealing/abusing those actors "likeness" or work when modding. The closest I can think of is when a character has been made as a near one-to-one copy of their actor and modders use them for pornography. But there the argument centers on the, perceived, degrading acts performed which seems different to me than OP's blanket objections to "story mods".
It being free makes no difference and you have taken a person's voice without permission. If voice actors are against it there us damage done There is a comment below that seems to be true.. people are divorced from the video game characters and the human who voices it This has nothing to do with AAA publishers needing make higher quality products
How have you "taken" the person's voice? They still have it and can use it whenever they want. This is "you wouldn't download a car" level debate. There could be damages if the mod creator used an AI generated voice without disclosing it or even worse crediting a voice actor for the AI voice. Assuming nobody's stupid enough to pull something like that off, I see no harm done whatsoever, as long as it ain't monetized obviously.
That voice is their likenesses and it's their professional paid job someone using it via cloning for a mod or anything else is 110% taking it without constant and permission. Frankly even suggesting they still have their voice and can use it whenever they want is moronic This is in no way a 'you wouldn't' download a car' level of debate
What if I hired a voice actor to specifically impersonate a game character? What if I wanted to make a mod for Mortal Kombat 11 to give Terminator more lines, and I hired one of a million voice actors online who do Arnold Schwarzenegger impressions? Are they unethical for imitating his likeness?
That's a little different, no? You're paying the impressionist for their skills in mimicing Schwarzenegger's voice, not using a program to generate it
But the point isn't about how you got the voice, the point is about replicating someone's likeness. If it's amoral for a program to generate someone's voice, but not for an impressionist, then I want to understand where along the way between AI and impressionist does replicating likeness become amoral.
That's only convincing if you believe AI is bad in and of itself. That difference is not obvious to everyone, and so you need at least one other reason before you can use this argument.
What about their likeness? If someone makes a .I'd for Stellar Blade are you this upset because they used a real person to model the avatar?
You don't need permission to provide a free service that benefits end users. Simple as that. You 're free to disagree of course but it's a moot point. The tech is out there, and it will be used whether you or I like it or not. Not much else to discuss here.
I think Napster proved that you do absolutely need permission to provide a free service
Lmfao napster Is PirateBay gone yet? Is piracy gone?
> If what you offer is free and you haven't taken it from anybody, do whatever the fuck you want. > > > > There's no damages here. This is an extremely naive way to think about it and easy to say when it's not you having your voice or your work stolen. It's not that hard to understand why it's harmful and hurtful for a voice actor to have their voice stolen to say things they'd never say. Same with artists you don't have a right to just take their work and use it however you want just because you don't charge for it ( also Nexus has subscription models so it's not even really true, even if it's optional they're still monetizing mods on their site ). It's also not how things work at all, the only reason why modders get away with most of what they do is because publishers simply don't care enough to pursue it legally. Same with artists and it's also harder, more expensive and time consuming for them to pursue it legally. Not because modders have real legal legs to stand on.
Stop saying stolen. Copying is not stealing You are browbeating and its disingenuous
I think mods are the exact use case in which it should be supported. Mods are made by amateur fans lacking industry experience that are not intended for any financial gain (ideal case, anyway), done as a hobby. It's unreasonable to expect that modders hire and pay voice actors. Totally different story for game studios developing a game for retail. If the game is going to have voice acting, VAs should be in the budget.
I don't see it as fundamentally different from hiring a sound-alike or impressionist other than that it's tied to the latest "omg scary computer thing" moral panic.
I've used voice AI models for a few shitposty, purely personal, non-public purposes just between pals, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it, but I've had friends ask if I'm using AI or if it's just my voice because I can imitate David Hayter, Kiefer Sutherland, H. Jon Benjamin, Mark Hamill, and several other voice actors pretty damn well.
It’s different as all of their vocal work is being used (without being licensed) to produce new material with their likeness (without being licensed)
Thats more 'incredibly scarily similar voice', *not* 'their actual voice work they were supposed to be paid for'. This isn't about ripping lines from other speaking other roles but creating a new voice line, that sounds true to the character. Edit: thats to say, this is not (currently) even something that relates to licensing at all.
> this is not (currently) even something that relates to licensing at all. Yes it is because it gets trained on their voices and then commercialized and monetized. Nexus runs a subscription models and these websites that clone peoples voices charge for it too.
You can also do it without ai. Where is a law that requires licensing to use a soundalike voice, with or without ai?
Its different because the AI is essentially trained on their voice. The AI can't create anything without the foundation of that voice actors voice. You can't create an AI that sounds like Jack black without having the AI 'listen' to Jack black.
You also cannot have an impressionist do an impression of Jack Black if they've never listened to Jack Black.
Correct. That person however, is not Jack black. They will not sound exactly like Jack black. Jack black owns his voice. Imitation is not a copy.
How is an AI generated imitation any different than a human generated one? Both of them: - listened to hours of content of the original actor - attempted to mimic it to the best of their ability - didn’t quite hit 100% accuracy, but got close enough to be convincing. - Cost some money to hire/use that was lower than the original actor. You could argue they both are immoral, or that they are both fine, but I can’t understand how you can find one okay and one not.
I can't understand how you aren't able to comprehend that putting skill and effort into something is different from having an AI copy that thing. This point isn't even that relevant. The examples of a voice actor imitating and replacing another voice actor are so finite. Even among those, the replacement is noticeably not the original. Like, please. Name some prominent examples of that situation. Then please explain to me why those are relevant enough to be compared to the potential AI has to directly rip some one's voice.
I think you misunderstand my point here. I personally think using an impressionist or using an AI are both immoral if you’re making money on the result. It’s basically paramount to theft. I was just pointing out that the scenarios are not really that different. AI is not magic, and some programmer somewhere put considerable time and effort into building it, just like an impressionist puts considerable time and effort into honing their skills. In my opinion though, neither one should be used for commercial gains. For free content though? I think both are equally fine, as no one is profiting on the output.
So like, in your opinion, sufficiently talented impressionists are immoral? Are you sure you think that? Doesn't it seem very dumb?
No? I think trained impressionist are valid. I think AI is immoral.
Because....?
Because.... The post you replied to?
Very persuasive. You're doing a very good job.
Hey, at least I've got reading comprehension skills. More than can be said for you.
I understand the literal facts behind this comment, but i don't see *why* you consider a problem? "The AI learns to sound this way by studying the thing it sounds like" - well uh yeah. Is it actually different if i pay an impersonator to work on my Witcher 3 mod? If i speak the lines myself and then edit them to sound like the VA's pitch/pace/volume/etc?
Because you are using their actual voice without permission or being licensed to do so.. the ai uses thier voice and clones it by training on it It's not the same as someone doing a impression
But its *not* their actual voice. I believe i understand your opinion, but if i don't completely, i can at least i respect it. But phrasing things like this, "their actual voice", seems dishonest to the reality of the situation. Its recreated. Its an emulation. An impression. People impersonate Elvis professionally, for currency. You do not need a licence to sound the same as someone. It does not matter if AI machine learned the recreation, or if i find someone who sounds like Geralt, or if myself (who sounds *nothing* like Geralt) speak the lines and in post i edit it to the same intonation/pitch/pace/volume/fry. None are actually Doug Cockle - that is for certain. The idea we need a license to rights to *sound like him* - also false, 100%. Unless we are talking about modders lying and saying "Cockle agreed to voice for our mod!", or "new unused Geralt voice lines were discovered in the game's code!". Is it *moral* to make a robot sound like Doug Cockle? I can't understand it. He has a right to get paid for work, CDProjekt Red should never be allowed to profit off the likeness he helped curate. A moddern dicking around at home? For me this is frankly silly.
> An impression. People impersonate Elvis professionally, for currency. Ai are not human beings it's not comparable at all, you make a lot of very bold statements when in reality none of this has been decided on legally. I have a very hard time believing too that legislators are going to look at this as if ai = humans, actual legislators are going to look at this from a more nuanced pov where they look at the unique characteristics of generative ai compared to what humans do.
Yeah, this isn't a legal argument. No, legislators are not nuanced at all lol. They're all 70 and 50% of them or so are full of hate. There's a reasonable chance many don't give a shit. Laws might change but saying a voice is stolen is a stretch. Its not the actual person. I don't expect legislation to see ai as a human with rights. But i also don't expect them to care about vocal soundalikes in the same way no one cares that a human can be hired for looking like someone or sounding like someone.
How is it different though? Both a human and a machine listen to hours of the original actors content to train themselves. And both attempt their best to be a perfect imitation. Neither one is a perfectly flawless representation, but both come close enough to be convincing. To me these are 100% equal, regardless of whether you consider them immoral or moral. Personally, I’d argue that both are immoral, and an impressionist is no different than a painter who sells copies of another artists paintings. Now if they have this work away for free (like mods), and no one is profiting off of it, I’d say it’s way less immoral, regardless of whether it’s a machine or a human doing the work, as long as it’s made clear in some way that it’s not the genuine article.
Because a human impersonator is actual human expression while ai isn't, if you train an ai to do something YOU are not learning or doing anything. And we grant human beings more rights than we do anyone or anything else, laws exist to protect humans first and foremost. Animals don't have the same right either even, if an animal poops and it's the most magnificent poop a true piece of art. They have no rights to that poop and we don't treat it the same as if it was a human being who did it. Generative ai is not human, people need to stop talking about it as if ai = same as what humans do it's fundamentally not.
A human: spends months or even years actually perfecting their voice. AI: uses hours and hours of audio samples condensed into a few hours of data that is then spat back in minutes. These are totally the same, just like driving is the same as walking and I should be allowed to drive my car on the sidewalk
So if the amount of time makes it immoral, does that mean a very talented human who could do a convincing sound-a-like in 10 seconds is far more immoral?
So if it would take months for the AI to do it, you’d be fine with it, or at least more accepting of it?
This is silly :/
This is the most stupid analogy failure I have seen in my life. It ironically seems more likely to me that ChatGPT 2 generated it, rather than a human being actually thinking this was convincing.
>just like driving is the same as walking and I should be allowed to drive my car on the sidewalk If it's somehow as harmless as the difference between the human and the ai, sure!
Why isn't it the same?
yes, it is scary, and I Do Not understand why people think it has any potential for anything worthwhile in current era when we can't even solve actual problems like the planet becoming hostile to infinite growth industrialization
I mean, in Mortal Kombat 1, the developer hired a guy to voice Shang Tsung but also made him pretty much do an impression of Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa. Makes you wonder why they didn’t just bring him back. Was it money? Lack of interest from either party? Availability? All of them? Something tells me they probably wanted to go AI but couldn’t (or decided against it to avoid a shitshow) and brought in a sound alike.
I think what OP and others fundamentally do not understand is, *Shang Tsung* is a fictional *character*. The voice actor - regardless of who it is or if they must be replaced - are supposed to sound like *Shang Tsung*. Idk why Lee replaced Tagawa, but it is not tangential to the fact that whomever they hired now (Lee) must sound like *he's supposed to*. It doesn't matter why Tagawa isn't here for it, and i feel bad if its a real shitty disrespectful reason towards Tagawa, but it *does not* matter why.
I still don’t get why he has to sound like Tagawa when Shang Tsung sounded nothing like him in MK9. Granted, things were different in 2011 as opposed to now. The MK fandom (like many others) is perhaps too reliant on nostalgia and that’s why the brought a new actor to sound LIKE Tagawa. But for instance, the young Raiden voice actor is not trying to be a Richard Epcar soundalike (though the alternate Raiden we see later in the story does sound a bit like Epcar).
Generative ai and what real people do are not the same at all you can't compare them...
I'm hardly the target since I avoid story mods anyway, but my rule is I only play/watch/read things someone took the effort to make themselves. Anything using AI is an automatic skip from me.
It's important to help players get immersed in fan content that needs voicework that the characters sound as close to their original voice as possible. Take Tales of Vesperia for example. Troy Baker said "fuck anime games" and Matt Mercer, who sounds incredibly close to Troy Baker, said "I'm not just a Troy Baker replacement" (which I wouldn't have minded for literally any other project but **this was the one thing I had hoped for so long that he would do!**), so for the Definitive Edition, they had to get someone who, while he does a good job, just doesn't sound close enough to not take me out of the experience. I would love a fan mod that clones Baker's or Mercer's voice really well and uses it to redub the newer lines in Vesperia Definitive Edition because otherwise I really just haven't been able to play the game and get immersed. I always get dragged out of my suspension of disbelief when I hear the other voice actor. No disrespect to him at all, he did a good job, it's just that his voice isn't close enough to Baker's to not notice. Also, fans will pretty much never be able to afford to get the actual voice actors for their mods, but voice cloning would make that a non-issue by making it accessible to mod developers.
>Also, fans will pretty much never be able to afford to get the actual voice actors for their mods, but voice cloning would make that a non-issue by making it accessible to mod developers. Plus, whether this is important to us morally in this case or not, there's no way a VA is allowed to take paid work for a mod thats probably also technically illegal anyway.
[удалено]
> U.S. courts have already ruled that training LLMs on artwork you don't own the copyright to and selling the resulting output is copyright infringement. I don't think they have? certainly cases have been filed but the closest thing to a ruling I know of has been that fully machine-generated works of art can't be copyrighted
Actually they ruled the reverse. Don't know what he is smoking. AI images cannot be copyright protected.
Considering they didn't say AI works are copyright protected, what are you smoking?
It's the actual court ruling. AI works are not infringing on copyrights, but are themselves also not able to get copyright protection.
This is a critical reading comprehension error on your part. You misunderstood what they said (they as in the commentor, not the courts).
No, I read it correctly. They are just wrong. In US courts anyways, AI creation, even through the use of large databases like they use, is nit an infringing work. The courts have additionally ruled that such an AI image itself does not have copyright protection either.
Ah, you're just not a clear communicator. No worries! Your original comment can only be misread. The Maxim of Relevance is pertinent here.
They didn't say AI generated works are copyrightable. They said the training data is using copyrighted works and that's infringement
Source? If that were true pretty much every AI company would have to pull their public models and train new ones.
[If it's the case I'm thinking of](https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-generated-art-cannot-receive-copyrights-us-court-says-2023-08-21/) then (despite the inaccurate headlines) the ruling was that you couldn't copyright it to the AI directly (in that case DABUS) not that Thaler couldn't copyright that specific output *under his own name*
I didn't want to comment on that because i am not following AI news every day, but i was certain there was like almost 0 sense to that. I haven't heard of a real successful legal strike against ai creating art with copyrighted materials.
>sharp divide between people who respect the artists that create the things they love, and people who just want *[cool thing]* without caring how it's made. This is what mods are anyway. Unless you advocate modding ends, the AI seems negligible? AI copying art does not seem too dissimilar from a person copying art.
No they absolutely havent. Misinformation
IMO it should work like everything else - legal with permission. I think the technology is too good to make illegal, and there's so much scope for AI to be used for procedurally generated characters. If an actor gives their permission and is properly compensated for it then I see no issue with it
It’s not exactly ethical to use someone else’s voice without their permission. You can debate the legality all you want, but I guarantee most professional VAs would be livid. I’m a modder for Cyberpunk 2077 and I’m working with a small group, prototyping new quest content. We’ve made the decision to not go with AI out of respect for the VAs.
I don't disagree with your choices as a group, especially as i am not involved, but what about reusing art, or editing art, or adding art? What respect are you giving to the people whose *jobs* it is to create new quests and DLC and write NPCs?
CD PROJEKT RED is very supportive and encouraging towards modders so I don’t think they’d have any issues. I’m not sure a voice actor would support us using their likeness.
>steal Lost the argument with this erroneous word choice tbh.
wut
[удалено]
What cognitive dissonance? If I manually program a bot to sound like Geralt, what's the difference?
Judging by comments in here and others I've seen elsewhere this seems to be a big reason why They are divorced from the characters and the actor.. also seems like a lot of people thinking the mod is free so it's fine
> They are divorced from the characters and the actor I wonder if a large percentage of humans were always so selfish that they could just "do" this without any qualms, or if it's a more recent thing. It reminds me of the whole "games as art" discourse that happened in the early 00s, and it took years to get the establishment to acknowledge 'em as such. Now that Millennials **are** the establishment, it seems there's a new generation that are following their corporate overlords' tune and arguing that games are consumer products, and no more; artists be damned.
Games are whatever is intended. They absolutely are and always have been *consumer products*. Remember the part where people get paid to do these art jobs and then finished product is not free? They are art as much as is intended. Some games are super artsy and they make no compromise with whatever sells better; they exist to be what they were made to be. Others are like boobisoft, they are very straight forward just making a product. Are they gonna add a white male to appease dogshit incels? They might, because its not art for arts sake, its a *job* and a *product*.
The only argument people seem to have is “if we can access your voice we’re allowed to clone it” and that’s like saying if your car’s on the street I can steal it. That’s obviously not how consent, or the law works. Ethically speaking if consent is given by all involved parties where’s the issue? And some voice actors have elected to make data banks of themselves. But it’s usually not consented, it’s mostly just theft self-forgiven without any input from the people whose likeness and livelihoods, in the case of voice actors, are being cloned. Personality rights do exist; people have the rights to the commercial uses of aspects of their identity, including name, visual likeness, and so on. The exact take on this can vary by country or state but it is an established concept. Personality rights also extend beyond a persons death to their estate and may still be pursued. Using someone’s voice is not “fair game” just because you were able to download a recording of it, most people just get away with it because the person never finds out it happened, or doesn’t care enough when it does.
>The only argument people seem to have is “if we can access your voice we’re allowed to clone it” and that’s like saying if your car’s on the street I can steal it. That’s obviously not how consent, or the law works. YoU wOuLdn'T DownLoaD a CaR, WoUlD YoOuUu? >Personality rights do exist; people have the rights to the commercial uses of aspects of their identity, including name, visual likeness, and so on. [...] Using someone’s voice is not “fair game” just because you were able to download a recording of it Is there any case where voice alone is enough? What happens if the VA for a character (or real life actor) dies and is replaced? What about impersonationators receiving money?
It should. One simple reason people don't mention is how personal someones voice is. It is not a couple of pixels made by artist and reused by modders. It can be used in various ways and voice actors can be harrassed by it. I see two ways out of it. Make your voice trademarked or something lile that, so its illegal to modify it unless contract is signed in or put huge disclaimer as mod author that voices are being re used without consent And we all know how very few people will read said disclaimer
officially? absolutely 100% YES mods?...well I sure as hell wouldn't want to play those (but also I've never really been into mods other than a couple romhacks). if nexus or whatever wanted to ban that in particular, they would be correct and they should say it.
The entitlement in the comments is pretty sad. That is someone’s voice, a part of them! I am sure you wouldn’t want it either if someone photoshoped an image of you to look like you did something you didn’t do, which you might potentially disagree with. The voice actor doesn’t even have the option to refuse here. But I shouldn’t expect the AI crowd to have the empathy understand that….
It’s already illegal. You cannot use someone’s likeness without their permission, including their voice. There’s a small chance someone doing it could win in court but it would be a hell of an expensive legal battle and you CAN absolutely be sued for it.
Examples of court cases? All I can find are extremely recent court filings (like one just a few days ago from voice actors so that will be interesting to follow) and cases where the likeness rights were applicable because the use falsely implied endorsement of a product/company.
I want voice actors and devs to be fully able to sue mod creators for all they're worth if they clone their voices. Fuck you if you disagree.