Capitalism: steal first, apologize with no real repurcussions later
Sadly, it was Grace Hopper who said “It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.”
Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper (9 December 1906 – 1 January 1992) was a U.S. Naval officer, and an early computer programmer. She was the developer of the first compiler for a computer programming language; at the end of her service she was the oldest serving officer in the United States Navy.
That brings me to the most important piece of advice that I can give to all of you: if you’ve got a good idea, and it’s a contribution, I want you to go ahead and DO IT. It is much easier to apologize than it is to get permission.
- The future: Hardware, Software, and People in Carver, 1983
Except she probably wasn’t referring to identity theft; just how to handle dumb shits in management.
Yeah, there’s some key qualifiers in there
if you’ve got a good idea, and it’s a contribution
Identity theft is neither a good idea or a contribution to society
trump x biden fan fiction being voiced with deepfaked voices is both a good idea, and beneficial to society.
Dumb shits in military management. And she was an admiral; near the top of that management.
Well, she did tell that she didn’t get a budget, so they just effectively stole from other departments. Want a table that’s not bolted down? Take it.
But that’s Navy internals, (arguably) not a massive for-profit company that’s going it out of sheer greed.
Oh so I guess piracy is fine if it’s citizens getting robbed huh? Funny how that works.
Sony will pirate from anyone who isn’t Sony. Same with Time-Warner. Same with Columbia. Same with every studio, every label, every publishing house.
Absolutely no-one in the industry takes piracy seriously until it’s their own stuff being pirated by someone else.
Moreover, they all are used to Hollywood accounting, in which lawyers try to justify not paying someone for work whenever they can.
Hollywood. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany.
A fantastic example is the Verve’s Bitter Sweet Symphony.
It samples a few seconds of a Rolling Stones song. For this, the former Stones manager Allen Klein sues them. The Verve gives up all royalties for the whole song. So the Stones are getting that money, right? No, Klein had the ownership of the piece in question go to himself.
Klein dies in 2009, and the rights to everything finally revert to the Stones in 2019. They think the whole sampling thing with the Verve is stupid, and relinquish the song’s rights back to them.
For about 20 years, it was not only morally OK to pirate that song, but morally obligatory. The execs of the industry don’t give a shit about the artists.
I think you misspelled capitalism.
We are going to need much stronger image rights for individuals in the AI age.
There’s no way to stop the technology itself (although current development may plateau at some point), so there must be strong legal restrictions on abusing it.
Yeah, the genie is out of the bottle on this one. I can do voice cloning with consumer hardware and available models. That can’t be undone, but good legal protections would be nice.
That said, the Johanson case is a bad example because it really didn’t sound much like her at all. It was a chipper yound white lady sound, but to my ear sounded nothing like Johanson. It did sound kinda like a character she voiced, but I would not gave confused the two. They cloned the voice of someone they paid to give a similar inflection as the voice from Her. That’s far removed from cloning Johanson herself. It is closer to people making music “in the style of”.
Do you want the rich to be richer? Because that’s how you make the rich richer. People like Scarlett Johanson will be able to license their likeness for millions or billions. Of course, we would have the same rights; the same rights to own a mansion and a yacht. Feeling lucky?
That’s the kind of capitalism that Marx rages against: Laws that let people demand money without contributing labor.
There’s no future where this affects me in the slightest. Okay, so jeff Goldblum can get a few more shekels for renting his voice. This doesn’t affect me: that’s his JOB, whether they stole his likeness and paid him, paid him and cloned his voice, or paid him to do the speaking. It’s the same thing, imho.
Talk to me when people who don’t have their voice recorded get an unfair leg-up for selling it. I’ll be okay with it then, too, but let me know.
The real risk is the voice being sold to Disney or Sony Music, and then youtube videos are getting removed because of similarities.
Voice tones aren’t all that unique in most cases and there’s too much room for abuse imo. The Scarjo and open ai scandal is a good example of this. The voices weren’t that similar and I’m just not interested in having celebrities own whole spectrums like that.
And it’s a landlord’s job to collect rent. It’s Elon Musk’s job to maximize shareholder value.
It’s ok if you watch out for numero uno. I’m not expecting more. But you are wrong to think that this doesn’t affect you. You can’t opt out of society. You won’t be able to avoid products with licensed voices. Your taxes will be paying for enforcement against “pirates”. And most importantly, every new privilege for the rich and famous changes society. With every step, the elite becomes more entrenched and the bottom more hopeless. It’s a matter of enlightened self-interest. If we only reject what directly hurts us individually, then the elites will simply build themselves a new feudalism.
And it’s a landlord’s job to collect rent. It’s Elon Musk’s job to maximize shareholder value.
Are you really conflating people who make their living based upon their acting skills and likeness with landlords?.. Wow.
I am asking this in good faith as a neurodivergent individual:
Could you please clarify where you’re coming at this from?
Is it that you feel that actors and other creatives are less legitimate as workers than others?
Is it that you think that LLMs could be a path towards AGI that could save humans from themselves?
Is it something else entirely?
Myself, I am coming at it from the perspective of someone who has worked in the tech industry for a while, and is familiar with the underlying technologies and how hyped they’ve been. I additionally personally know several professional actors, SAG-AFTRA and non-union, who have been materially impacted by AI and corpo bad faith in recent years (especially streaming services and game companies). On top of that, as a millennial, I have experienced significant financial setbacks due to unfettered corporate greed and know many peers who are much worse off than myself because of price gouging and stagnant wages.
My main motivations in AI conversations are undermining hype and ensuring that people take ethics into consideration, while looking at technologies that do have some actually interesting use cases and could lead to other interesting things.
Are you really conflating people who make their living based upon their acting skills and likeness with landlords?
No. I am talking about rent-seeking.
Rent-seeking is the act of growing one’s existing wealth by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth.[1] Rent-seeking activities have negative effects on the rest of society. They result in reduced economic efficiency through misallocation of resources, stifled competition, reduced wealth creation, lost government revenue, heightened income inequality,[2][3] risk of growing corruption and cronyism, decreased public trust in institutions, and potential national decline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
You could argue to what a degree landlords or Elon Musk are engaged in rent-seeking. Likeness rights are a clear example, though.
Imagine in the near future. Some famous person licenses their likeness for a show, game, movie. Maybe the producer hires an unknown actor that is then digitally altered into the famous person, like a more advanced version of Gollum. Or maybe the VFX artists can do it on their own. These guys work. The famous person does nothing. They might be dead, while the rights-owners still collect license fees.
No. I am talking about rent-seeking.
Oh! I see. We are starting from very different places on looking at the situation. I see one’s likeness as a part of their identity that they have a fundamental right as a human being to agency over. I place it in a similar category to one’s labor - can exercising one’s agency over their body really be considered “rent-seeking”?
I see the uses of AI “plagiarism engines” in arts and creative trades by major corporations as just another way to alienate workers from their labor and exploit them.
You could argue to what a degree landlords or Elon Musk are engaged in rent-seeking.
By definition, I’d think.
Or maybe the VFX artists can do it on their own. These guys work.
Major respect for VFX artists, stage engineers, and all the trades under IATSE. They do huge amounts of very skilled work. They are the foundation on which all modern media rests and I’m glad that a greater share of them have unionized.
Likeness rights are a clear example, though. … Imagine in the near future. Some famous person licenses their likeness for a show, game, movie. Maybe the producer hires an unknown actor that is then digitally altered into the famous person, like a more advanced version of Gollum. … The famous person does nothing. They might be dead, while the rights-owners still collect license fees.
Here, I think, is a bit that I do agree with you on. One’s likeness should never be able to be owned by anyone else. Die and it’s public domain. Just like the ridiculous copyright terms that Disney secured, the idea of one’s likeness outlasting their life, let alone someone else having agency over it is preposterous.
The scenario that you propose is part of why unions exist in the first place. SAG-AFTRA hasn’t been doing amazingly on the subject but, they’re definitely doing more than about any union that I’ve seen in relation to AI impacting a trade and making it more susceptible exploitation. I would suggest that in your scenario, both actors (and the producer) are acting in an unethical manner. The famous actor is pulling up the ladder behind them, not giving the junior actor the opportunity to gain prestige in their trade. The junior actor is participating in exploitation that should be grounds to strike the production. The producer is using the licensed likeness as leverage to pay and credit the junior actor less.
The situation should not happen and, if SAG-AFTRA allows it, actors should form a new union that treats all of its members when respect.
can exercising one’s agency over their body really be considered “rent-seeking”?
First of all, I am not impressed by this kind of emotional manipulation. You are talking about exercising agency, power, over other people’s bodies. If someone, whether a VFX artist or a hobbyist, would use a likeness without a license, you want them stopped. At the end of the day that means that LEOs will use physical force. You may not think of something like copyright being enforced through physical force, but that is what happens if someone steadfastly refuses to pay fines or damages.
Enforcing intellectual property, like a likeness right, means ultimately exercising power over other people’s bodies. The body whose likeness it is, may not be involved at all. In the typical case of a Hollywood star, they would be completely unaware of what the enforcers are doing.
Rent-seeking is an economics term. Rent-seeking is as rent-seeking does. You may feel that society - the common people -have to suffer for “justice”, like people were expected to suffer for the diving rights of kings. But you can’t expect people not to remark the negative consequences. Well, I guess if I were living in such a monarchy, subject to the divine right of a king, I would be quite circumspect. I wouldn’t want to be tortured or imprisoned, after all. And yet it moves.
Usually, rent-seeking involves property, and yet the right to own property is internationally recognized as a human right.
to alienate workers from their labor and exploit them.
We’re probably not on the same page regarding terminology. This sounds like a Karl Marx idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx’s_theory_of_alienation
Obviously that’s not what you mean. I guess I’m just surprised to see these hints of leftism mixed in with conservative economics.
SAG-AFTRA
…is fundamentally a conservative organization. It’s no coincidence that Ronald Reagan was president of SAG, before becoming president of the US. They will favor the in-group over the out-group and the top over everyone at the bottom. That’s what the doctrines you are repeating are designed for.
You do realize that the vast majority of voice actors are not famous right? These are people working in a highly competitive labor market that has one of the few influential unions in the US outside of trades. Most of these AI companies aren’t going after Johansson and the like if they have to pay instead of steal. They’re going for those who are less established and trying to get a break, making them easier to exploit.
You do realize that the vast majority of voice actors are not famous right?
Yes, that’s the point. You are not defending voice actors by demanding likeness rights.
I am not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Maybe there is some confusion about the technology. You only need a few seconds of audio to clone a voice. You don’t need hours of audio from a professional. That’s why the tech can be used for scams. Likeness rights won’t create jobs for voice actors. Only free money for famous people. You can also generate random voices.
Leading AI voice companies like Elevenlabs require you to have permission to clone a voice. But how can they check if their customers are being truthful? In practice, it simply means that famous people, whose voices are known, may not be imitated. Likeness rights, by their nature, can only be enforced, with any kind of effectiveness, for the rich and famous.
OpenAI tried to hire Johansson. When she declined, they hired a different, less famous actress. Maybe they did that to defend against lawsuits, or maybe it gives better results. If they had engineered a nonexistent voice, it would be almost impossible to make the case that they did not imitate Johansson. But still, everyone is talking about that poor famous, rich person who got ripped off. What about the actress who actually provided the voice? I guess she can look for another job, because Johansson owns that voice type.
one of the few influential unions in the US
You mean Ronald Reagan’s old outfit? Do you even know who Ronald Reagan was?
Yes, that’s the point. You are not defending voice actors by demanding likeness rights.
Knowing people who are not famous but are SAG-AFTRA actors, I’m going to have to disagree very much on that. A regular contractual battle is the “in perpetuity” clause for one’s likeness. This happens at all levels. Essentially, clients often try to sneak a clause in that grants them the exclusive right to use the actor’s likeness forever. While this does not mean that the actor does not receive pay, it binds them to the client in a way that prevents them from getting other work and diminishes their bargaining ability.
But still, everyone is talking about that poor famous, rich person who got ripped off. What about the actress who actually provided the voice? I guess she can look for another job, because Johansson owns that voice type.
If the actress was performing in an affectation to impersonate Johansson, she was effectively acting no better than a scab and enabling corpos to violate consent. Knowingly impersonating another loving actor for purposes other than parody is a scummy thing to do and the actress was ethically bound to refuse the job.
Being famous doesn’t make someone less of a person. They’re just people like the rest of us (though generally more financially lucky). We all have a right to our identity and likeness and to decide how our likeness is used. Legitimatizing the violation of that consent is not a path that benefits any worker.
You mean Ronald Reagan’s old outfit? Do you even know who Ronald Reagan was?
That’s a poor and fallacious argument there. California is Ronnie “Pull Up the Ladder” Reagan’s home state does that make all Californians Reaganites by association?
Knowing people who are not famous but are SAG-AFTRA actors, I’m going to have to disagree very much on that.
How do likeness rights benefit non-famous people?
Turning likeness into an intellectual property implies the right to sell it. Apparently you want to argue for likeness, so I don’t see why you would use such clauses as an argument.
That’s a poor and fallacious argument there.
It’s not an argument, as you have recognized. I hoped it would make you think.
You know that not everyone in Hollywood is part of SAG-AFTRA, right? Have you ever wondered what happened to them during the strike? I guess they just have to fend for themselves. If the “union” doesn’t care about those guys, do you think the leadership cares about the small members?
Actors are a conservative lot. At the bottom, you have the “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” and at the top… Well, you know. It’s not common on lemmy to cheer for such a system.
Legal plagiarism machine
deleted by creator
Ok this
isseems like a problem of trademark not copyright, or impersonation and fraud by pretending to be him. It’s about his name, not really about his voice. His voice is also pretty generic EDIT: it’s only in this specific market segment that it’s problematic.Not sure if the video said it was from him or not. It’s been taken down, so I can’t check, but I don’t think it ever made that claim. Someone just noticed it sounded the same as Jeff.
It’s copyright because they had to have fed the model with voice data from Jeff’s videos.
Well in this case they used his likeness and brand to appear more legitimate and make money. So I’d argue this is trademark (even if not registered) so a legitimate complaint.
I don’t believe in “copyright” for a voice. See for example impersonators. But in this case it’s a deliberate deception which is pretty simple.
I don’t believe in intellectual property at all and think it is a form of theft, to deprive others from common knowledge or information just to seek rent. In case of patents I equate it even to aiding in genocide, since most advances in more energy efficiency use are patented and exploited for profit and slowing down adaptation. Without exhaustive attempts to try other systems to pay creators, copyright law is a moral abomination. That is a philosophical or ethical argument, not a legal one.
I cannot wait until all actors and writers get replaced so every thing is just bland cookie cutting trite that is mid tier at best. Producers will make do much money and audience won’t have a choice but to watch it
So much money
audience won’t have a choice but to watch it
This is only true if humans stop making art. Maybe Hollywood dies at the hands of AI, but independent media will always exist & consumers will always have a choice.
But what about live performers? Why would someone go to see a local band when they can see a hologram of the ‘beetles’ for much cheaper?
I’m not sure how you can get much cheaper than a local band lol.
I can go see a DIY show with a local no-name act for less than $12. There are even shows (often I see this for theatrical shows) that are pay-what-you-can (including $0). I don’t see a world where these are going away, even in the face of AI.
Besides, I don’t think the consumer is comparing a local band with the ‘beetles’. The Beatles are quite literally one of the most influential acts of all time – it’s a false equivalency.
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.
The voice isn’t his to own in the first place. “They” have a right to use it as much as he does.
Huh?
Your voice is not unique. Therefore not “yours”
Incorrect
The voice isn’t his to own in the first place. “They” have a right to use it as much as he does.
No, it’s fraud. The CEO of the other company admitted that they consider this to be infringement, and it was done to make the video more popular, which to me means the staff did it so people would assume Jeff Geerling supported the video (and there’s evidence that viewers did initially make that assumption).
So it seems clear to me that Jeff Geerling, Jeff’s viewers, and the CEO of the company producing the videos with the voice imitation consider it to be infringement, and I believe it amounts to fraud.
How dem boots taste?
They stole it? Did they send a robot to surgically remove his vocal cords?
No, instead they raped his rights with some ToS…
