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

[showler]

. Do voice actors have more protections/rights than anyone else involved in creation of the game???

 

I suspect these questions can ONLY be answered by beth, and we can debate this till the cows come home, and not come to any legal conclusion.

 

For here, on this site (the single biggest and most influential modding site on the internet), a "legal conclusion" is not necessary. The site owner has said they will remove mods that use AI generated voices at the request of the original voice actor. The legal status of those mods is irrelevant.

[HeyYou]

 

. Do voice actors have more protections/rights than anyone else involved in creation of the game???

 

I suspect these questions can ONLY be answered by beth, and we can debate this till the cows come home, and not come to any legal conclusion.

 

For here, on this site (the single biggest and most influential modding site on the internet), a "legal conclusion" is not necessary. The site owner has said they will remove mods that use AI generated voices at the request of the original voice actor. The legal status of those mods is irrelevant.

 

Until a decision comes down one way or the other on the legality of such practices, yes indeed, staff here has the final say. Now, if it is determined that using AI to replicate a specific voice is deemed some variety of the copyright infringement, the it won't matter if the original voice actor says anything or not, the all immediately become illegal, and will have to be taken down, regardless of staffs views on the matter. So yes, the 'legal conclusion' IS relevant. We just haven't got there yet.

[RoNin1971]

 

. Do voice actors have more protections/rights than anyone else involved in creation of the game???

 

I suspect these questions can ONLY be answered by beth, and we can debate this till the cows come home, and not come to any legal conclusion.

 

For here, on this site (the single biggest and most influential modding site on the internet), a "legal conclusion" is not necessary. The site owner has said they will remove mods that use AI generated voices at the request of the original voice actor. The legal status of those mods is irrelevant.

 

For the lack of clear rules and such. Yes. As HeyYou said, when the rules are there, it doesn't matter what anybody thinks. Ofcourse, the modderators here still have the right to refuse anything, even if legal by the rules.

 

& that's what is needed. Although most rules are there already. A voice (file) is an "asset" for which there are rules & copyrights etc.

 

Like the cars. They did not get banned, now did they? (maybe should have, as its the most deadly object ever created by men)

[showler]

 

Until a decision comes down one way or the other on the legality of such practices, yes indeed, staff here has the final say. Now, if it is determined that using AI to replicate a specific voice is deemed some variety of the copyright infringement, the it won't matter if the original voice actor says anything or not, the all immediately become illegal, and will have to be taken down, regardless of staffs views on the matter. So yes, the 'legal conclusion' IS relevant. We just haven't got there yet.

 

 

Well, if we're getting that technical then even if it is deemed copyright infringement Bethesda could probably still give permission. But I doubt they would. I just don't see an upside for them if their voice actors are against it.

 

I was referring more to the current status for modders at the moment.

[HeyYou]

 

 

Until a decision comes down one way or the other on the legality of such practices, yes indeed, staff here has the final say. Now, if it is determined that using AI to replicate a specific voice is deemed some variety of the copyright infringement, the it won't matter if the original voice actor says anything or not, the all immediately become illegal, and will have to be taken down, regardless of staffs views on the matter. So yes, the 'legal conclusion' IS relevant. We just haven't got there yet.

 

 

Well, if we're getting that technical then even if it is deemed copyright infringement Bethesda could probably still give permission. But I doubt they would. I just don't see an upside for them if their voice actors are against it.

 

I was referring more to the current status for modders at the moment.

 

True, currently it is allowed. And that will likely remain the case until either beth, or some higher power, determines its not ok. On these legal gray areas though, I have noticed over the years that beth is actually very careful NOT to state a firm position, one way or the other. If they even answer at all.... Probably safest legal course of action for them.... :) And now, Zenimax/Beth are owned by Microsoft..... So, what beth has to say may or may not carry any weight in any event.

[niston]

Seems relevant: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence

[lazloarcadia]

Seems relevant: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence

 

 

Is there a layman's (and MUCH shorter) synopsis of this? After about 3 pages deep into it seems to be more of a debate piece than any real guidance being offered, except to say that you can't copy right protect materials that are 100% AI generated (such as asking the AI to write a paper or create an original painting). I will however admit that the article is interesting because it is the beginnings of an attempt to regulate AI created content.

 

Such legislative efforts will certainly become more relevant in the days ahead as the use of AI created content becomes even more mainstream and easier to use by the average layman. Honestly my question is not if legislation will be forth coming, but if it will be able to keep up with the speed at which AI is developing...which I HIGHLY doubt.

 

As for the concerns that the voice actors guild will simply boycott projects and studios which are using AI technology for the creation of voice files, I think that would simply bite the VA's hard in the ass if they opt to do so. AI technology in this particular space is still in it's infancy. As it grows, and likely grows VERY quickly, it will soon out pace the ability of human VA's to keep up with it. As this happens, the AI will very likely show itself to be able to create such content much faster and cleaner (needing less editing / auditing) than the human counterparts.

 

You say the VA's guild will be mad? I say AI tech has the very real ability to utterly disrupt that industry, not unlike the way it can (and already is) disrupting so many others.

Edited April 29, 2023 by lazloarcadia

[lazloarcadia]

Something occurred to me about this topic just today. Yes many voice actors are understandably concerned, upset, etc about the prospects of how AI voiced content can effect them, however if we stop for a second we'll see that the group that is really impacted by this are the current up and coming stars. Older actors that already have a ton of movies, voice acting, etc are largely not effected by this trend in the same way, and in fact they stand to profit hugely from it.

Consider for a moment if you have a well known actress like Sigourney Weaver (SW). She has been acting for decades, and let's hypothetically say she is enjoying a semi-retirement. So now she is looking for a way to not have to take on long term projects. She could go work for a couple of weeks creating voice lines, and then hand over those lines and the rights to them. In a fashion not unlike what happens now, those voice lines become the intellectual property of the studio that produces the game or movie.

 

Next, the AI goes to work on the few hundred voiced lines SW has produced and turns those into several thousands. SW gets paid, and has been given full disclosure on how those voiced lines will be used. Does she really CARE that the AI will use the material to generate new content? No, because she is nearing the end of her career anyway. In fact if anything, this new AI content guarantees her voice acting will survive for decades to come.

 

A second income stream for these more tenured actors, or the studios that own the rights to their previously created content, would be to leverage the existing movies, etc that actors have done in years past to create new voice files from that old content. You could (for example) have a documentary made of JFK and have his (AI re-created) voice featured in the movie.

 

So far we have really only discussed how the Voice Actors feel threatened by this new technology, but the ways in which it can really improve on not only the gaming industry, but also the movie industry, is really unmatched.

Edited April 30, 2023 by lazloarcadia

[HeyYou]

Something occurred to me about this topic just today. Yes many voice actors are understandably concerned, upset, etc about the prospects of how AI voiced content can effect them, however if we stop for a second we'll see that the group that is really impacted by this are the current up and coming stars. Older actors that already have a ton of movies, voice acting, etc are largely not effected by this trend in the same way, and in fact they stand to profit hugely from it.

 

Consider for a moment if you have a well known actress like Sigourney Weaver (SW). She has been acting for decades, and let's hypothetically say she is enjoying a semi-retirement. So now she is looking for a way to not have to take on long term projects. She could go work for a couple of weeks creating voice lines, and then hand over those lines and the rights to them. In a fashion not unlike what happens now, those voice lines become the intellectual property of the studio that produces the game or movie.

 

Next, the AI goes to work on the few hundred voiced lines SW has produced and turns those into several thousands. SW gets paid, and has been given full disclosure on how those voiced lines will be used. Does she really CARE that the AI will use the material to generate new content? No, because she is nearing the end of her career anyway. In fact if anything, this new AI content guarantees her voice acting will survive for decades to come.

 

A second income stream for these more tenured actors, or the studios that own the rights to their previously created content, would be to leverage the existing movies, etc that actors have done in years past to create new voice files from that old content. You could (for example) have a documentary made of JFK and have his (AI re-created) voice featured in the movie.

 

So far we have really only discussed how the Voice Actors feel threatened by this new technology, but the ways in which it can really improve on not only the gaming industry, but also the movie industry, is really unmatched.

I could also see a similar deal, where the VA's 'agent' has an ai already set up for this kind of thing, studios submit lines, agent feeds them to ai, ai spits out audio files, everyone gets paid. VA does nothing except collect a check. :D

[showler]

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.