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

[Vagrant0]

On 4/15/2024 at 2:08 PM, showler said:

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.

As far as I'm aware from the few things that made headlines... I believe most of the problems were regarding use in paid or adult mods as far as the morality issues are concerned. While using AI to generate a voice is far easier than taking dozens of voice clips and tweaking them to sound close, it is still just a tool. The result could likely be completed in some form one way or another, Ai just lowers the barrier to completion.

It is derivative... But really... So much of modding and art in general is derivative just as a requirement for existing.

[HeyYou]

22 minutes ago, Vagrant0 said:

As far as I'm aware from the few things that made headlines... I believe most of the problems were regarding use in paid or adult mods as far as the morality issues are concerned. While using AI to generate a voice is far easier than taking dozens of voice clips and tweaking them to sound close, it is still just a tool. The result could likely be completed in some form one way or another, Ai just lowers the barrier to completion.

It is derivative... But really... So much of modding and art in general is derivative just as a requirement for existing.

There is an interesting take on it. I am inclined to agree with ya there. I think the whole "Free" thing is the key. Charging for it would be an entirely different matter.

[ScytheBearer]

18 hours ago, Vagrant0 said:

As far as I'm aware from the few things that made headlines... I believe most of the problems were regarding use in paid or adult mods as far as the morality issues are concerned. While using AI to generate a voice is far easier than taking dozens of voice clips and tweaking them to sound close, it is still just a tool. The result could likely be completed in some form one way or another, Ai just lowers the barrier to completion.

It is derivative... But really... So much of modding and art in general is derivative just as a requirement for existing.

You may want to rethink your position.  Up until recently, all of the efforts against AI generated "voice and sound, image and likeness" have been civil proceedings.  However, a couple states are now using the laws against identify theft in their attempts to prosecute folks for "AI" generated fakes which replicate "voice and sound, image and likeness".  Right now, the focus is on "deep fakes" published in social media, political ads, etc.  But if they are successful in their prosecutions, the use of a person's AI duplicated voice may be considered identify theft, and subject to criminal prosecution. 

Edited April 26 by ScytheBearer

[Vagrant0]

17 hours ago, ScytheBearer said:

You may want to rethink your position.  Up until recently, all of the efforts against AI generated "voice and sound, image and likeness" have been civil proceedings.  However, a couple states are now using the laws against identify theft in their attempts to prosecute folks for "AI" generated fakes which replicate "voice and sound, image and likeness".  Right now, the focus is on "deep fakes" published in social media, political ads, etc.  But if they are successful in their prosecutions, the use of a person's AI duplicated voice may be considered identify theft, and subject to criminal prosecution. 

Except that is still more a matter of how it is being used to perform illegal activities or fraud.

To take it a different direction, consider the number of people out there who use voice clips of various actors for things like reactions on their channel. Even though these people are not trying to steal identity or portray themselves as those voices, such a broad definition of "replicated sound, image, and likeness" would make these fairly benign actions technically illegal. Even if it was limited to just things produced by AI, it may be virtually impossible to prove that AI was not involved given the derivative nature of sound clips, particularly with studios negotiating rights to the sound, image, and likeness of their actors and extras. Then what about coincidental things, such as altering your own voice using AI software, or any software, but which just happens to sound close enough to someone else?

Trying to ban the process instead of the already illegal activities just makes it impossible to enforce other than for the sake of adding those charges onto other crimes. This is especially true when it is already being used by the general public as well as media companies. In order to work to any degree, AI companies would have had to leave audio fingerprints in any modified audio since the start of AI generation, while also maintaining tight restrictions on the base technology so that independent parties could not produce anything without those fingerprints... In short, that ship has sailed by quite a large margin, never-mind the technical impossibility of having fingerprints that cannot be faked or removed.

[ScytheBearer]

2 hours ago, Vagrant0 said:

Except that is still more a matter of how it is being used to perform illegal activities or fraud.

To take it a different direction, consider the number of people out there who use voice clips of various actors for things like reactions on their channel. Even though these people are not trying to steal identity or portray themselves as those voices, such a broad definition of "replicated sound, image, and likeness" would make these fairly benign actions technically illegal. Even if it was limited to just things produced by AI, it may be virtually impossible to prove that AI was not involved given the derivative nature of sound clips, particularly with studios negotiating rights to the sound, image, and likeness of their actors and extras. Then what about coincidental things, such as altering your own voice using AI software, or any software, but which just happens to sound close enough to someone else?

Trying to ban the process instead of the already illegal activities just makes it impossible to enforce other than for the sake of adding those charges onto other crimes. This is especially true when it is already being used by the general public as well as media companies. In order to work to any degree, AI companies would have had to leave audio fingerprints in any modified audio since the start of AI generation, while also maintaining tight restrictions on the base technology so that independent parties could not produce anything without those fingerprints... In short, that ship has sailed by quite a large margin, never-mind the technical impossibility of having fingerprints that cannot be faked or removed.

I'm pretty sure prosecutors who are using the laws against identify theft against those who use someone's "image and likeness, voice and sound" without their permission already consider any such usage illegal.  And they are looking to be successful in their prosecutions.  A persons "image and likeness, voice and sound" are part and parcel of a person's identity.  This principle has already been legally established and affirmed by the courts in Matt Furrie vs Frito Lay. 

Furthermore, twisting copyright and claiming that the use of someone's "image and likeness, voice and sound" without their permission is a derivative work has no basic in law.  Such thinking is little more that a flight of fancy.  Using such a whimsical ideology to excuse, justify or embrace identify theft says something unpleasant about a persons moral fiber. 

I'll leave this there.
 

[showler]

Nexus Mods has already said that if the laws are changed or "clarified" in such a way as to make AI generated voices illegal they will change their rules to eliminate such mods from the site.

So, it doesn't really matter at the moment.

[aurreth]

5 hours ago, showler said:

Nexus Mods has already said that if the laws are changed or "clarified" in such a way as to make AI generated voices illegal they will change their rules to eliminate such mods from the site.

So, it doesn't really matter at the moment.

And to be clear that's BRITISH law.  Nexus is UK based.

[Vagrant0]

16 hours ago, ScytheBearer said:

I'm pretty sure prosecutors who are using the laws against identify theft against those who use someone's "image and likeness, voice and sound" without their permission already consider any such usage illegal.  And they are looking to be successful in their prosecutions.  A persons "image and likeness, voice and sound" are part and parcel of a person's identity.  This principle has already been legally established and affirmed by the courts in Matt Furrie vs Frito Lay. 

Furthermore, twisting copyright and claiming that the use of someone's "image and likeness, voice and sound" without their permission is a derivative work has no basic in law.  Such thinking is little more that a flight of fancy.  Using such a whimsical ideology to excuse, justify or embrace identify theft says something unpleasant about a persons moral fiber. 

I'll leave this there.
 

Except that we are talking about things as they relate to mods. Nobody is going to download a mod and think that anything the character in the mod does or says remotely reflects their real world counterpart. It is not identity theft, and any attempt to claim it as such can be resolved with a simple disclaimer. And, as you point out, using a person's likeness without permission in an attempt to impersonate, slander, or defame them is already illegal on its own, so the method of how that likeness was constructed is not really important. Again, that is my point. It is not that tools exist that allows it, it is that there is intention exists to commit a crime using those tools. We are not talking about identity theft, fraud, blackmail, or anything similar. We are talking about making mods. So as far as mods are concerned, intentions tend to be more important than how the effect is achieved in deciding if it is banned or not.

 

As far as copyright is concerned, there is very much a gray area in terms of content related to video games. I mean...

 

This uses audio clips from the game, it alters audio both in cutting and adjusting pitch and timing, it uses game art. It even uses a computer generated audio effect in a few spots, qualifying it as AI generated under strict terms. If it was in such clear violation of copyright, it would have not existed on Youtube as long as it has. Modding tends to be a similar sort of medium. As long as you are not distributing files and data, many things tend to be treated as fair use as long as it is not for profit or with the intention of damaging the copyright owners. It may not be law, but it is common practice and companies seem to allow it since it does often help keep their product culturally relevant longer.

[ScytheBearer]

On 4/16/2024 at 1:19 PM, HeyYou said:

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.

Such suits name everyone associated with such usages, from mod maker to hosting sites as part and parcel of the illegal usage.  The objective is to go after the deepest pockets, and in this case, that would be Robin Scott, Nexus Mods and BlackTree Gaming. 

 

[Fkemman11]

Agree. Voice actors should be given full support to protect their work like any other artists. Besides, there are more than enough actors willing to do NSFW as it is and there's no reason to basically steal someone's signature sound. It's like stealing from the Beatles or something- you just don't do it.