AI Voice mods are unethical and Nexus should either ban or limit them

[LadyFrey]

I don't know if this is the right place to put this but I've just been itching to say something. I primarily mod Skyrim and Baldur's Gate 3 and I see a lot of AI voice mods coming from Skyrim. They've always bothered me, there's something horribly unethical about taking someone's voice and using it against their will. I saw an article talking about how some of the Baldur's Gate 3 actors have had their voices stolen and Amelia Tyler talking about how hers was used to narrate r@pe p0rn against her will.

Quote

BG3 narrator Amelia Tyler described coming across multiple instances of her already-iconic performance being replicated through AI, including for upsetting and unseemly purposes: "I went on to this stream because somebody gave me a heads up, and I went on and heard my own voice reading rape porn.

"That's the level of stuff we've had to deal with since this game came out and it's been horrible, honestly."

Tyler said that such use of her voice "is stealing not just my job but my identity," and that while she loves videogame mod scenes, "to actually take my voice and use it to train something without my permission, I think that should be illegal."

Given the issues with AI voice mods and the fact that actors themselves had said that they don't want their voices used for mods (especially NSFW mods) I don't understand why Nexus doesn't ban them, or at the very least limit the kinds of AI voice mods that are allowed. Maybe a limit that the mods can't be from a voice actor who has not consented to their voice being used in a voice bank? There certainly are actors who have consented to their voice being used in a voice bank and have gotten paid for their work. Nexus has banned things before like racist or homophobic mods, so I'm sure they could also do something like this with AI voice mods.

[showler]

https://www.nexusmods.com/news/14850

[LadyFrey]

5 minutes ago, showler said:

https://www.nexusmods.com/news/14850

While that's true, that doesn't cover the ethics of using a voice actor's voice when they haven't given permission for their voice to be used. I feel like it shouldn't be on the voice actors to be ever vigilant and constantly scouring mods to make sure their voices aren't being stolen. And the way Nexus's position is worded, it seems that only the voice actor can make a complaint to take the mod down.

[showler]

Nexus Mods has allowed mods with imitations of actor voices in the past.

Nexus Mods has allowed mods with spliced dialogue made from existing dialogue in the past.

Banning AI voice mods is banning a tool, not the result of using the tool.

And while they have stated that the voice actors can object to the use of their voice in training an AI imitator, I'd imagine they would also remove mods where the result of using the AI voice is objectionable in an of itself.  They always have the option to decline hosting any mod based on the content.

But it will likely remain on a case by case basis rather than banning the use of a tool entirely.

[ScytheBearer]

In California, the unauthorized use of someone's image and likeness, voice and sound ARE illegal.  See California Civil Code section 3344.   See Tom Waits vs Frito Lay.

All MS Tyler need do is have her attorney go to the California Superior Courthouse in San Fransisco and file a civil lawsuit against the maker of the mod and Nexus Mods and Robin Scott (for hosting the mod) for violating California Civil Code section 3344.  And  before anyone starts screaming that California law has no meaning to a British Company, think again.  I am sitting in CA and can access the content.  NexusMods Profits from having this content on their site and available in CA. 

Edited April 15 by ScytheBearer

[showler]

Quote

The use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in a commercial medium shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a) solely because the material containing such use is commercially sponsored or contains paid advertising. Rather it shall be a question of fact whether or not the use of the person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness was so directly connected with the commercial sponsorship or with the paid advertising as to constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a).

But if it comes to it I'd imagine Robin can afford the $750 and will remove the mod in question.

Or course, they've already said they'd remove the mod in question upon the actor's request, so taking it to court would be pretty wasteful anyway.

[Guest deleted156886133]

I have mixed feelings about AI in general. But when used in this application, illegalities and unethical practices aside, it only serves to further blur the lines between fact and fiction, reality and fantasy, truth and lies. Is that something we really need? To quote Maynard J. Keenan from the song Grey Area, 'No more real, no more lie. This is the age of confusion. Obliterating the lines here in the digital paradigm.'  It really takes a great deal of mindfulness and vigilant fact-checking to differentiate between the two nowadays. But I'm a reasonable person, reasonable enough to realize that AI is a juggernaut with little chance of being stopped. At the very least, I believe we need to be regulating it heavily while we still can.

Just my opinion.

[ScytheBearer]

... it shall be a question of fact ... Translation: demonstrated as fact at trial,  the judge/jury decides, adjudicated by the court. 

Edited April 15 by ScytheBearer

[showler]

Or not.  That's the nature of a question.

[HeyYou]

If folks were making money from it, yeah, I can see how that would not be good. (patently illegal in any event) But, for free mods? I have a lot less of a problem with that.