Question regarding AI

[TheRealxPyro]

I've been wondering what exactly the rules are on the use of AI generated voices for mods, I know there are a few which use the voice already in the source game as samples, but is it allowed to use the voice of famous people or characters from other games? Perhaps even VAs from existing mods? Though I imagine that last one falls under using others assets, but again it begs the question is content generated using their voice still theirs?

 

I'm simply curious what the limits are on this, not necessarily from a moral stance, but more of a "If I do this will I be struck down by the almighty banhammer?" stance.

 

I'm also aware that technically ElevenAI and other sites have their own rules about this which most people seem to ignore.

 

Sorry if this is already explained somewhere or I'm asking in the wrong place, but I felt this was technically a question about the rules of nexusmods.

[JimboUK]

I'm not a lawyer but didn't Disney need permission from James Earl Jones and Mark Hamill for the rights to recreate their voices with AI? it suggests they think you can't just recreate someone else's voice without permission.

[DoctaSax]

Can't speak to Nexus policy, but legally there is definitely precedent that protects people from having their voice associated with a product or work of art without their consent. Tom Waits won more than one lawsuit in the US and Europe against companies using impersonators for ads that sounded as if Waits had done them. Back then, those were landmark cases because the companies hadn't actually used his music recordings for it, simply something that sounded close enough to his voice and stylings that could convince people it was him. They had to pay up serious cash over that too.

 

AI sampling a voice and creating new work with it is close enough to the same practice, and there's even a tiny bit of actual copying involved, so I wouldn't expect legislation and the courts to be more lenient if the matter was pressed, particularly with the precedent in place. Ofc, people like Waits or James Earl Jones have distinctive voices, so their claim that their reputation could be damaged by being associated with something they don't approve of or consent to has a bit more weight than people who sound less distinctive, I suppose.

[mangaboy111]

AI is going to force copyrights for things such as "I decided to play G F D chords and I have a lot of lawyers so now I own all songs that go G F D" to drown out in it's own stupidity. And the same is going to happen to AI voice impersonations. The Tom Waits case was from the 90s. It's a very different world now. I doubt it would stand in the modern internet era. That might have seemed logical to some pompous idiot before everyone had access to a mic. But now, suddenly Tom Waits and James Earl dont actually sound "THAT" unique in the grand scheme of things and other people sound just like them. Because humans aren't as diverse as we like to think we are.

If we copyright our face, our voice etc. Then what's to stop someone from copyrighting the CO2 they breathe out? The entire concept falls apart if you apply it consistently, which law has to be.

The effects of the internet and the fact millions of people have exactly the same idea as you at the same time you have that idea, has already eroded a lot of copy right protections.

So whilst right now it might still perhaps be a point of contention and controversy I think ultimately the only logical answer would be to NOT be able to patent or copyright a natural given thing including genetic make up of an individual because if you patent your voice, you are effectively patenting your genetic make up that gave you your voice. Actually I think the genetic argument completely crushed an agri company who were trying to sue some farmers cuz basicly the company tried to patent the genes of their pigs, the pigs originated from Germany. And then suddenly they were like, oi you german farmers, your pigs have our genetic data. But they didn't win. Actually that terrible company I shan't name due to the political history of it tanked and got bought out by another large company. All in all, the copyright market hasn't been very successful of late. And copyright strikes look more and more like the cries of denial as an ageing star becomes more and more irrelevant. The competition strategy of successful companies in the modern era is to buy their competition, not cry to the courts over patents.

Copyright cases in the past decade carried out by large companies like Blizzard and Disney have been nothing but a PR nightmare for said companies. Just how a lot of people frown on the exodus of authors over if they are allowed to delete a file or not on this site. It is petty. People only care about the quality of the product they consume and have little care for people that prevent them from consuming the product they desire. As such buying and "imitating" (aka copying) competition is the preferred way of doing things. You can look at Overwatch and Paladins. Both games are always influencing the other. When one game makes something that works the other one takes it.

[HeyYou]

Really need staff to weigh in on this......

[showler]

Cases like the Tom Waits thing had less to do with what the voice actually sounded like and more to do with the companies intentionally trying to make viewers think it was Tom Waits.

 

I don't think you could copyright a voice, but you can prevent people from profiting from your overall image and consumer goodwill toward you.

 

I'm less interested in what the staff thinks of this than I am in how some modders are going to make a mess of this and ruin it for everyone.

[HeyYou]

Cases like the Tom Waits thing had less to do with what the voice actually sounded like and more to do with the companies intentionally trying to make viewers think it was Tom Waits.

 

I don't think you could copyright a voice, but you can prevent people from profiting from your overall image and consumer goodwill toward you.

 

I'm less interested in what the staff thinks of this than I am in how some modders are going to make a mess of this and ruin it for everyone.

Well, I would think that if staff says "No, ya can't do that." There won't be any problems....... Of course, Nexus is more concerned about the legal aspect of it all, and I am not sure if any precedent has been set yet.

[ScytheBearer]

Unauthorized use of name or likeness is an unlawful commercial use of an individual’s (or business’s) name, image, or other identifiable characteristics without their consent. That is established law. The Tom Waits suits expanded the interpretation of this legal precedent to include the voice or sound which is uniquely identifiable. So, sampling a voice from either the game or a mod and then using that to "reproduce" the sound of a voice actor is technically illegal under existing law.

 

Now, damages can be associated with such illegal use because voice actors get paid for their work. Using their voice illegally diminishes their income, and therefore infringes on their lively hood. Courts love rewarding such injuries with huge payouts, as with the Tom Waits suits.

 

So, the answer to the OP question is that no matter how you go about reproducing the voice from another mod, it is illegal and dangerous.

The fact that Nexus has already permitted mods which participate in this illegality onto their site is simply a demonstration of their ignorance. Robin should review such mods with his legal team and make a determination, including the depth of his pockets.

Edited March 14, 2023 by ScytheBearer

[Pickysaurus]

We're definitely aware that some users in the community have concerns regarding AI tools used to created voices/art/etc for mods.

 

It's a really cool tech and has a lot of potential in the modding space, but at the same time I can see the potential problems and avenues for abuse it creates.

 

Some users have said that it devalues the work of artists/voice actors who create original content but we're not entirely convinced on that. Original content tends to be much higher quality and there's space for both types to coexist.

 

Right now, the use of AI-driven tools and their outputs is not prohibited by our File Submission Guidelines and we don't have any good reason to change that for now.

 

Mods are generally cobbled together with whatever resources the author had to hand to make their vision a reality. In my own mod work I've spliced together existing dialogue lines to create new ones. AI voices are basically an evolution of that.

 

If a mod is submitted that uses a remixed voice or some kind of AI-generated image that infringes on copyright in some way, we'll respond to any valid file report or DMCA which we comes from the copyright holder.

 

With mods being passion projects that are created and distributed for free I don't really see them being too big a target. If you did the same thing in a commercial context (i.e. a product you were selling) that would be a lot more problematic.

 

In short, it's a situation we're monitoring, but for now using AI content isn't against the rules. I would recommend sticking to voices that already exist in the game you're modding to be safest.

[ScytheBearer]

Additional data for the debate.

"On March 16, it [The American Copyright Office] issued public guidance instructing applicants to clearly disclose if their work was created with the help of AI.

"The guidance said the most popular AI systems likely do not create copyrightable work, and 'what matters is the extent to which the human had creative control.'"

 

- https://www.reuters.com/default/humans-vs-machines-fight-copyright-ai-art-2023-04-01/