They stole my voice with AI | Jeff Geerling
They stole my voice with AI | Jeff Geerling
You're viewing a single thread.
Sorry but you can't own a voice. You can sue if it is implied that a voice is you, but you can't own the voice. If you could, you'd run into all kinds of problems. Imagine getting sued because your natural voice sounds too much like someone with more money and lawyers than you. Of if you happened to look like a celebrity/politician.
"You can't own your own voice"
Talking out of your dystopian ass, aren't you?
Ok, so how would that work? What does happen if you happen to sound like someone else? Who gets the rights to that voice?
In this case, it is likely that they wanted to use his voice if the videos done in collaboration went particularly well. So the fact that it's hus voice has a specific reason to be. This could hold as a claim, I think.
That might be a valid claim. But I would find it to be a very weak one unless they can come up with evidence that their use actually pretended to be him. The strongest argument here in my opinion would be that they hoped people would assume it's him, even though they never state it. In the end it would be a very fact-reliant case, and subjectively I wouldn't be convinced of an attempt to mislead based just on the use of a voice alone.
So you'd be ok with someone taking your fedia.io account and just posting whatever they wanted? I mean it's just an account it's not you is it?
Again, I'm asking what, in a perfect world where this kind of protection existed, would happen if two people had similar (or identical) sounding voices? Which entity would gain the legal rights and protections?
Impersonating exists, the difference there is if someone was impersonates you and says something defamatory, you can sue that person, what this article is suggesting is if I made an AI model of your voice I am not liable for anything I make that voice say
I never argued that you can't sue for implied endorsement or defamation. That is illegal. What isn't legal is owning a voice outright. You're conflating the two.
There is no impersonation so good that it is totally indistinguishable from the person being impersonated when seriously analyzed.
My voice developed through a combination of my body structure, my upbringing, speech therapy and a lot of training to do VO work. I absolutely own it. I have worked very hard on it.
I own my voice the same way I own my legs.
I'm sorry but that isn't true. A voice is a natural trait. There are other people with similar or identical voices out there.
Let's just say you can "own" a voice. In that world, what happens when two people naturally sound similar? Who gets the rights?
Similar voices are not the same voice. You can analyze them and show that they are different.
So the answer is that the person who said it gets the rights. Because it's their voice.
The idea that you don't own something that is a unique part of you is ludicrous.
There is no way to exactly fingerprint a voice. There isn't a mathematical definition of a voice. Even fingerprints and DNA aren't completely unique; think of twins. This means that a subjective judgement would have to be made when deciding ownership.
Look, I'm obviously not going to convince you. But I hope, for your sake, that this legal framework doesn't come to exist because you will not be the winner. Disney, Warner Brothers, or some other entity with deep pockets will own just about everything because they have the lawyers and money to litigate it.
There are real problems and dangers of trying to turn everything that has value into capital for capital owners.
You're right. It's not like there's anything out there like voiceprint identification or anyth-
https://www.phonexia.com/knowledge-base/voice-biometrics-essential-guide/
Oh.
There isn't a mathematical definition of a voice.
The subtle and human imperceptible difference between two similar yet distinct sounds (voices) is absolutely demonstrable through mathematical analysis, more specifically, signal analysis.
Sure, but you can use someone's likeness to fraudulently tie them to some product you're pushing. The burden here is if the average person familiar with the voice would mistake it for support, and if the creator likely intended for that to happen, and I think that standard has been met here given the response by the CEO and the allegations by Jeff Geerling's audience.
If you just happen to look or sound like a celebrity/politician, that's a different story because fraud requires intent. Now, if you used your likeness to imply support by that celebrity/politician for some cause or product, and you don't disclose that you're not them, then we're back in fraud territory.
In this case, there seems to be clear evidence that there was intent to mislead viewers to improve views. That's fraud.
Yes, that was the distinction I was trying to make. These cases are fact dependent. I'm willing to admit that in this specific case there might have been both the intent to imply endorsement by a specific person and that practical result.
But as you can see in the other comments where I'm getting reamed, owning a voice outright is a pretty popular (if currently legally dubious/impossible) concept.
Yeah, you technically don't own your voice/likeness, but it's quite difficult to use someone's voice/likeness without violating some other law. If you call out that you're using it and that your use is not endorsed by the person it came from, you should be fine.