Jump to content

Freely Replicate anyone's voice even ur .....


satya

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, pseudopop said:

I don't mean to belittle anyone (though I obviously am) but if all it takes to replace you is a software that sounds like you or a 3d model that looks like you, were you really that unique and skilled in the first place?

In order for you to be replaced by said software, a model of your voice must be trained by such, which is rarely a concern for nobodies of the internet like myself and potentially you and others.

1 hour ago, pseudopop said:

I would be surprised if studios weren't already planning something like this for the near future, without the drugging and killing, of course (probably).

Not really studios, but Spotify is. Making use of AI generated music would solve the primary problem they have currently, which is having to pay musicians to use their music. And they barely do that these days.

4 hours ago, Eusebio Rufian-Zilbermann said:

Copyrightable? very questionable. I would argue that no, it doesn't meet the requirements of a copyrightable "work" (of course, I wouldn't be shocked if politicians succumb to lobbying pressures and further erode the public domain beyond what the Constitution says)

Trademarkable? Possibly, but the requirements for maintaining a trademark/registered trademark need to be met (e.g., making an investment in creating a brand out of it)

Wouldn't all of those fall into prior art? Because we have yet to meet an algo that can train on models of real life stuff which doesn't exist yet.

11 hours ago, mettelus said:

I think this is the real issue, as this is the intent of some. Essentially stealing someone's brand and profiting off that is a clear-cut no-no.

This is one of the reasons why 15.ai doesn't exist anymore and Uberduck has removed several voices models which came from the former. The owners of these voices (people, actors and voice actors) demanded them to be removed off the platform.

Edited by Bruno de Souza Lino
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, pseudopop said:

There are only so many Mission Impossible movies Tom Cruise is able to make before age catches up with him. :)

LOL, quite true! Tom would be on the short list. But this has already been done several times in the newer Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Terminator, and even Gladiator to either "youthify" actors or outright use dead ones in scene. I am sort of CGI'd-out with movies and seems the general public is swaying that way as well. Flashy effects for lack of acting/script is a terrible trade off IMO. There are so many classic movies I have never seen and is interesting to be pulled into the story/acting rather than outrageous visuals (maybe why they are "classics" ?).

5 hours ago, pseudopop said:

I can't remember the article, but I recall someone telling how they put a unique technical gadget up for sale on Amazon, and after only a few weeks, cheap Chinese copies started to pop up.

This one actually strikes a nerve for me, as I consult people often on how to protect IP. Could write a book on this one alone (and then have it stolen, of course), but an interesting anecdote: I once asked someone who works for the US Patent and Trademark Office, "How many cases do you have filed for patent infringements from China?" She replied, "That number is significant." So I said, "Now the punchline... What are you able to do about them?" I got the blank stare back and, "Pretty much nothing." The IP game shifts dramatically when certain players adhere to rules but others do not (and cannot be held accountable).

Edited by mettelus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, mettelus said:

LOL, quite true! Tom would be on the short list. But this has already been done several times in the newer Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Terminator, and even Gladiator to either "youthify" actors or outright use dead ones in scene. I am sort of CGI'd-out with movies and seems the general public is swaying that way as well. Flashy effects for lack of acting/script is a terrible trade off IMO. There are so many classic movies I have never seen and is interesting to be pulled into the story/acting rather than outrageous visuals (maybe why they are "classics" ?).

Like they did in Logan?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2023 at 5:01 PM, PavlovsCat said:

EDIT: I thought I'd include this interesting article on the legal aspects of using someone else's voice, as some have wondered about where law stands on this (of course,  it varies from country to country, but overall,  it's clear that laws haven't yet caught up to technology in this area). 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/schuylermoore/2022/10/28/who-owns-voice-and-image-artificial-intelligence-rights/

This might be relevant too. A while ago, a footballer questioned who gave EA Sports the right to use their likeness in their FIFA games.

https://www.easportslaw.com/news/easports-image-rights-fifa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, antler said:

This might be relevant too. A while ago, a footballer questioned who gave EA Sports the right to use their likeness in their FIFA games.

https://www.easportslaw.com/news/easports-image-rights-fifa

It's not my industry, but I know in the US, for American football and other sports, the negotiations go through the players' unions. Either earlier this year or last year there was some issues with the agreement in one of the sports -- that is, there was problems in the negotiations, but I've never heard that EA had used any player's likeness and name without an agreement -- that would be a foolish move, as it would be a slam dunk in courts around the world for the player. 

Edited by PavlovsCat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, antler said:

This might be relevant too. A while ago, a footballer questioned who gave EA Sports the right to use their likeness in their FIFA games.

https://www.easportslaw.com/news/easports-image-rights-fifa

In short: a persons's name and likeness is their own property and they have a right to decide how it is used. Rockstar has been the target of a few lawsuits over the years because of that. Granted that doesn't quite work when you are football player playing for a team and your whole team is used. Although if I'm not mistaken, some soccer games sometimes don't have certain players in teams because the player in question didn't give permission to have his likeness used.

Edited by Bruno de Souza Lino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Bruno de Souza Lino said:

Wouldn't all of those fall into prior art?

Prior art applies to patents (protected innovation). It does not matter for copyright (protected expression) or trademark (protected branding)

But yes, I don't think anybody would try to patent their voice (unless they are the Bene Gesserit...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Eusebio Rufian-Zilbermann said:

Prior art applies to patents (protected innovation). It does not matter for copyright (protected expression) or trademark (protected branding)

But yes, I don't think anybody would try to patent their voice (unless they are the Bene Gesserit...)

What I am alluding here more applies to the idea that a person's unique voice at least for now, always exists before the AI model which replicates it, meaning it could be considered part of their likeness and not to be used without permission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

soundalikes has been/was? a lucrative business for session musicians for decades, when the number of entertainment media channels was fairly limited.

On 8/11/2023 at 9:35 AM, jude77 said:

what the legal issues would be, if any,  if someone used an imitator of a singer/actor

https://www.billboard.com/pro/ai-music-tools-copy-artists-voices-legal-questions/
it's only an issue when there is enough money for the lawyers to make a case.

On 8/11/2023 at 7:15 PM, mettelus said:

the premise of models/actors who looked GOOD, but couldn't model/act sing for crap.

plenty of examples, same as it ever was.

melodyne was in the "witchcraft' category when it first came out, mainly because it was less artificial sounding than autotune which interestingly enough has since evolved into a 'sound' of it's own.

i imagine the largest market for AI ripoffs is most likely just for personal gratification and possibly a potential revenue stream for some artists to 'officially' license their formants. however a YT full of Adele/Drake/etc/etc 'hits' would get really boring really quickly, kinda like synth presets,  and this whole issue will just as quickly become passe'. so probably not that big of a deal.

are 'tribute bands' still a thing?

Edited by jackson white
clarification/elaboration
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that this topic involved a discussion on AI regarding singers, rights/licensing,  I thought this article I just came across would be of interest. 

https://www.musicradar.com/news/google-universal-ai-vocals?utm_content=future-music&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR2eaCJ4rH-zF7uG_Gy7_Tp54XFVNyP8ePHmiNmx0MEOa1PHT9Nn8bvEWk8

Edited by PavlovsCat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PavlovsCat said:

Considering that this topic involved a discussion on AI regarding singers, rights/licensing,  I thought this article I just came across would be of interest. 

https://www.musicradar.com/news/google-universal-ai-vocals?utm_content=future-music&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR2eaCJ4rH-zF7uG_Gy7_Tp54XFVNyP8ePHmiNmx0MEOa1PHT9Nn8bvEWk8

Quote

"There’s nothing more precious to an artist than their voice,"

Said the Warner executive who will take your AI generated Ed Sheeran song down because he has the copyright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I feel like learning this but I would consider using it on myself to see what thats like. My voice is very different with getting older and pollen allergies and I often struggle with it. I have recordings of my younger years I could use. Kinda curious about singing with myself. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Idea 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2023 at 7:17 PM, jackson white said:

soundalikes has been/was? a lucrative business for session musicians for decades, when the number of entertainment channels was fairly limited.

On 8/11/2023 at 10:35 AM, jude77 said:

what the legal issues would be, if any,  if someone used an imitator of a singer/actor

https://www.billboard.com/pro/ai-music-tools-copy-artists-voices-legal-questions/
it's only an issue when there is enough money for the lawyers to make a case.

That's the truth! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...