Let's end the AI content debate - Does anyone have a good contact for Bethesada? (Yes, seriously)

[HeyYou]

That's all rather dependent on random people NOT being allowed to train AI with their voices and use it for free, though.

 

It is, specifically, consent from the original actor. Which is what Nexus would ideally want, though for now they are settling for a lack of complaint.

 

edit: Also, James Earl Jones has already made this deal with Disney. It will become more frequent.

For 'free to use' mods and such, (like mods for beth games....) It's really a non-issue. However, as soon as money gets involved, yeah, that's gonna be a problem.

[pepperman35]

According to https://www.investopedia.com, “a disruptive technology is an innovation that significantly alters the way that consumers, industries, or businesses operate. A disruptive technology sweeps away the systems or habits it replaces because it has attributes that are recognizably superior.

 

Recent disruptive technology examples include e-commerce, online news sites, ride-sharing apps, and GPS systems. In their own times, the automobile, electricity service, and television were disruptive technologies.”

“Artificial Intelligence” and “Machine Learning” are disruptive technologies, and like many of the previously mentioned disruptive technologies, these too are here to stay. Yes, there will be folks in each camp of the discussion: Pro AI and anti-AI, but the technologies will continue as will the debate. Companies will use these technologies to make money; scammers will likely use these technologies for exploitation. In a similar fashion, the modding community will likely benefit from using these tools. Kinggath demonstrated a potential use of ChatGPT (AI Assisted Quest Making) in a live steam. So creative modders will find a way to use these technologies.

 

NexusMods has stated their position on this topic (AI-Generated Content in Modding): “AI-generated mod content is not against our rules, but may be removed if we receive a credible complaint from an affected creator/rights holder.” Should you choose to do, use AI smartly in your mods. Let’s not make a mountain out of a molehill. Just be aware that legal precedents and the like, could cause NexusMods policies to be updated. If so, simply adjust you modding workflows.

Edited May 1, 2023 by pepperman35

[niston]

Is there a layman's (and MUCH shorter) synopsis of this?

 

Fundamentally:

In the Office's view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity

 

As such:

in 2018 the Office received an application for a visual work that the applicant described as “autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine.” The application was denied because, based on the applicant's representations in the application, the examiner found that the work contained no human authorship.

 

And:

In February 2023, the Office concluded that a graphic novel comprised of human-authored text combined with images generated by the AI service Midjourney constituted a copyrightable work, but that the individual images themselves could not be protected by copyright

 

Which then poses two three interesting questions:

 

a) could a voice actor claim copyright on someone else's AI generated voice files, imitating their own voice?

b) could a mod author claim copyright on their own, AI generated voice files, imitating a voice actor's voice?

c) if the answer to both a) and b) is NO, then what constitutes a "credible complaint from an affected creator/rights holder" ?

 

Food for thought.

 

Another one:

If the output of generative AI cannot be copyrighted due to lack of "human authorship", doesn't this provide a somewhat strong disincentive to use this technology in a commercial setting?

It appears to me that studios might prefer to hold on to their VAs, for their work can be copyrighted.

 

Going further:

Will copyrighted software inevitably vanish, because AI replaces humans writing code? Or will software corporations rather retain their human coders, for the same reason as above?

[HeyYou]

 

Is there a layman's (and MUCH shorter) synopsis of this?

 

Fundamentally:

In the Office's view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity

 

As such:

in 2018 the Office received an application for a visual work that the applicant described as “autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine.” The application was denied because, based on the applicant's representations in the application, the examiner found that the work contained no human authorship.

 

And:

In February 2023, the Office concluded that a graphic novel comprised of human-authored text combined with images generated by the AI service Midjourney constituted a copyrightable work, but that the individual images themselves could not be protected by copyright

 

Which then poses two three interesting questions:

 

a) could a voice actor claim copyright on someone else's AI generated voice files, imitating their own voice?

b) could a mod author claim copyright on their own, AI generated voice files, imitating a voice actor's voice?

c) if the answer to both a) and b) is NO, then what constitutes a "credible complaint from an affected creator/rights holder" ?

 

Food for thought.

 

Another one:

If the output of generative AI cannot be copyrighted due to lack of "human authorship", doesn't this provide a somewhat strong disincentive to use this technology in a commercial setting?

It appears to me that studios might prefer to hold on to their VAs, for their work can be copyrighted.

 

Going further:

Will copyrighted software inevitably vanish, because AI replaces humans writing code? Or will software corporations rather retain their human coders, for the same reason as above?

 

I think it more likely they will come up with some laws regarding copyrighting AT generated work.....

[showler]

I could easily see a case where they argue that since the copyright for works produced by a human contracted to a company is owned by the company same should be true for works produced by an AI owned by a company. In either case it is the company that owns the copyright, not a human.

[RoNin1971]

I could easily see a case where they argue that since the copyright for works produced by a human contracted to a company is owned by the company same should be true for works produced by an AI owned by a company. In either case it is the company that owns the copyright, not a human.

If you could argue that the A.I. itself is a product of human creativity, yes. Otherwise... they need to change that text first.

 

Sadly there are far bigger problems, with A.I. of the current 'variety'

It has no morals or ethics. No limits or boundaries & frequently left to teach itself using the internet, without supervision or guidance.

Yeah... what could possibly go wrong? :ermm:

 

@Niston:

 

a) could a voice actor claim copyright on someone else's AI generated voice files, imitating their own voice?

 

That's a difficult one. (for me at least, I'm no law student) but if it is indeed merely imitating the voice it will be hard, if not impossible.

but what about the original files used to 'teach' or 'splice'? Could they not argue 'you' had no right to use them in the first place and therefor everything produced is illegal work. No matter if its A.I. or not who did it.?

 

edit:

& what if a company like Bethesda does give you that 'right'? Does a VA still have anything to say about it?

Edited May 4, 2023 by RoNin1971

[showler]

Elliot Page complained that the people behind "The Last of Us" had basically stolen their image for Ellie prompting them to redesign the character during early development. Seems like that has some similarities to the voice issue. Nothing of theirs was taken, all the work was created from scratch, but they were still viewed as being a rights holder to their image.

[niston]

 

That's a difficult one. (for me at least, I'm no law student) but if it is indeed merely imitating the voice it will be hard, if not impossible.

but what about the original files used to 'teach' or 'splice'? Could they not argue 'you' had no right to use them in the first place and therefor everything produced is illegal work. No matter if its A.I. or not who did it.?

 

edit:

& what if a company like Bethesda does give you that 'right'? Does a VA still have anything to say about it?

 

 

 

Well, no. The voice actor could not claim copyright on the AI generated voice files. There is no copyright protection for anything produced by any entity that is not human. Simple as that. One more example they give -other than the ones I listed above- is that of the monkey who took selfies. Those selfie pictures cannot be copyrighted, because the monkey who took them is not human and, therefore, cannot be the author of a copyrighted work.

 

But yes, the Copyright Office acknowledges that more copyright-related questions arise with regards to generative AI, and to their training in particular. But there are no answers yet to those questions.

 

 

Corporations can own copyright on work produced by humans. People doing creative work for corporations will have provisions to that effect in their contracts: "For everything you create on company time, you agree to automatically hand over to this corporation all rights to your creation(s). We own everything you make here!". So if the voice actor handed over the rights to Bethesda as per their signed contract, then no: The VA doesn't have anything to say about it. All rights are with Bethesda.

 

Of course the VA could lament on Twatter or Reddit, and perhaps start a shitstorm.

A better approach would be to not sign any contracts where you automatically hand over all rights, if you're not OK with that.

[ImmortalAbsol]

I'm nervous that you're bringing it to their attention,we could just quietly enjoy it and act accordingly on an actor by actor basis if they do ask for it to be removed.

[lazloarcadia]

I'm nervous that you're bringing it to their attention,we could just quietly enjoy it and act accordingly on an actor by actor basis if they do ask for it to be removed.

 

I'm willing to bet that if this issue is really pushed, companies like Bethesda and Microsoft will most likely take the stance that once they own the rights to any given asset it is theirs to do with as they please. Including allowing the modding community to modify (or expand on it) as they choose. This IS effectively their stand point on it currently which is why we are able to create mods that expand the game world and story arcs today. As such I seeing no reason for them to change that stand point now with some of the VA's getting upset. In fact, if anything I expect they will simply no longer work with VA that make a big fuss about it.

 

Once the VA have signed the contract, delivered the required files and been paid by the producing company, the company now OWNS that asset (the voice file). As such the VA no longer have claim (creative, legal or otherwise) on how the companies choses to distribute it (unless specifically spelled out in their original contract). For example, if Bethesda wanted to only offer their game on steam, vs Amazon that is a company decision about distribution.

 

In the same vein if Bethesda later came back and release an Anniversary Edition update for Fallout 4 with a new DLC from previously unreleased content and voice lines. They are not going back to the original content creators (VA or otherwise) and offer them additional compensation.

 

On the other points that have been raised that mods are created for free, and AI content can't be copy right protected, I 100% agree. Free mods can't truly be said to jeopardize someone's income potential.