Main topic: Hi-Rez Studios using AI to clone voices of actors
Key points:
1. Hi-Rez Studios plans to use AI to clone the voices of actors for games like Smite and Paladins.
2. Voice actors are being asked to sign contracts without seeing the fine print or ensuring their safety or financial benefit.
3. The use of AI in this manner is seen as controversial and raises concerns about trust and transparency.
### Summary
A new episode of Netflix's "Black Mirror" explores how celebrities will contend with AI replicas, raising concerns about regulations and potential brand risks. The use of AI-generated replicas has already been a topic of discussion among actors and performers, who are demanding better protections. This development could also have implications for regular people managing their own digital likenesses.
### Facts
- The latest episode of "Black Mirror" focuses on a woman named Joan who discovers a show on a streaming platform that features a digital replica of her, portrayed by actress Annie Murphy.
- Actors have been striking to demand protections from studios regarding generative AI, including regulations for AI-generated replicas.
- Some celebrities are considering the coexistence of their AI replicas, which could bring new monetization options but also increase brand risks.
- The use of AI-generated replicas may extend to regular people, as companies like Soul Machines offer products for designing autonomously-animated digital persons.
- Soul Machines has created digitized versions of celebrities like Carmelo Anthony, Mark Tuan, and Jack Nicklaus.
- Another company called Hyperreal allows individuals to create digital versions of themselves for future generations.
### Loading
Something is loading.
### Summary
A federal judge in the US ruled that an AI-generated artwork is not eligible for copyright protection since it lacks human authorship.
### Facts
- The judge agreed with the US Copyright Office's rejection of a computer scientist's attempt to copyright an artwork generated by an AI model.
- The judge stated that copyright protection requires human authorship and that works absent of human involvement have been consistently denied copyright protection.
- The ruling raises questions about the level of human input needed for copyright protection of generative AI and the originality of artwork created by systems trained on copyrighted pieces.
- The US Copyright Office has issued guidance on copyrighting AI-generated images based on text prompts, generally stating that they are not eligible for protection.
- The agency has granted limited copyright protection to a graphic novel with AI-generated elements.
- The computer scientist plans to appeal the ruling.
### Summary
A federal judge ruled that AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted, which could impact Hollywood studios and their use of AI.
### Facts
- 🤖 Plaintiff Stephen Thaler sued the US Copyright Office to have his AI system recognized as the creator of an artwork.
- 🚫 US District Judge Beryl Howell upheld the Copyright Office's decision to reject Thaler's copyright application.
- 📜 Howell stated that human authorship is a fundamental requirement for copyright and cited the "monkey selfie" case as an example.
- ❓ How much human input is needed for AI-generated works to qualify as authored by a human will be a question for future cases.
- ⚖️ Hollywood studios may face challenges in their contract disputes with striking actors and writers, as AI-generated works may not receive copyright protection.
A federal judge has ruled that works created by artificial intelligence (A.I.) are not covered by copyrights, stating that copyright law is designed to incentivize human creativity, not non-human actors. This ruling has implications for the future role of A.I. in the music industry and the monetization of works created by A.I. tools.
The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers has proposed guidelines for the usage of artificial intelligence (AI) and data transparency in the entertainment industry, stating that AI-created material cannot be considered literary or intellectually protected, and ensuring that credit, rights, and compensation for AI-generated scripts are given to the original human writer or reworker.
A Washington D.C. judge has ruled that AI-generated art should not be awarded copyright protections since no humans played a central role in its creation, establishing a precedent that art should require human authorship; YouTube has partnered with Universal Music Group to launch an AI music incubator to protect artists from unauthorized use of their content; Meta has introduced an automated translator that works for multiple languages, but concerns have been raised regarding the impact it may have on individuals who wish to learn multiple languages; major studios are hiring "AI specialists" amidst a writers' strike, potentially leading to a future of automated entertainment that may not meet audience expectations.
Artists Kelly McKernan, Karla Ortiz, and Sarah Andersen are suing makers of AI tools that generate new imagery on command, claiming that their copyrights are being violated and their livelihoods threatened by the use of their work without consent. The lawsuit may set a precedent for how difficult it will be for creators to stop AI developers from profiting off their work, as the technology advances.
Two senators, Richard Blumenthal and Josh Hawley, have proposed a bipartisan blueprint for AI legislation that includes mandatory licensing for AI firms and rejects the idea that technology liability protections would shield companies from legal actions.
AMPTP studios have been including clauses in actors' contracts that set up artificial intelligence traps, leading to concerns about consent and the use of actors' likeness or image without their agreement.
Adobe has joined other companies in committing to safe AI development and has proposed a federal anti-impersonation law that would allow creators to seek damages from individuals using AI to impersonate them or their style for commercial purposes, which would make the impersonator, not the tool's vendor, the target of legal action.
Sean Penn criticizes studios' use of artificial intelligence to exploit actors' likenesses and voices, challenging executives to allow the creation of virtual replicas of their own children and see if they find it acceptable.
Voice cloning technology, driven by AI, poses a risk to consumers as it becomes easier and cheaper to create convincing fake voice recordings that can be used for scams and fraud.
Stephen Fry's voice was replicated by an AI, raising concerns about the future of voice actors and the need to protect intellectual property in the face of AI-generated performances.
High-profile songwriters are meeting with Congressmen to advocate for legislation protecting musicians' copyrights in the face of the rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in the music industry. The industry wants clear legislation that requires permission from copyright holders to use pre-existing songs to train AI for generating new music.
AI Threatens the Livelihood of Voice Actors: Will Their Voices Be Replaced?
Voice actors are facing a new threat to their livelihoods as generative artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more advanced. While AI can clone celebrity voices and narrate audiobooks, industry experts believe that it cannot fully replace the unique skills and artistry of human voice actors. However, the rise of AI poses concerns for voice actors, including the potential theft and misuse of their voices. Companies are exploring the use of AI for cheaper voice work, but experts argue that synthetic voices lack the engagement and uniqueness that human voices provide. Despite the challenges, some companies are embracing AI, including Spotify, which is using AI-powered voice technology for podcast translations. This technological advancement not only endangers voice actors' jobs but also raises ethical questions about the unauthorized use of their voices to create new content. In response, voice actors are negotiating for stronger protections and fair compensation in their contracts. Although the ongoing strikes serve as a challenge, African voice actors see opportunities to negotiate for fair contracts as the demand for their voices increases. They emphasize the importance of clear agreements on how their voices will be used and for how long, ensuring proper compensation and respect for their work.
Overall, voice actors are grappling with the potential impact of AI on their profession. While AI may provide convenience and cost-effectiveness, it cannot replicate the unique nuances, emotions, and cultural elements delivered by human voice actors. The concern lies in the potential theft and misuse of their voices, as well as competition from AI-generated vocals for lower-level voice work. However, there remains hope that the skills and artistic touch of voice actors will continue to be valued, particularly in high-production-value shows and projects that require cultural authenticity. As negotiations continue and voice actors seek stronger protections, they aim to secure informed consent and fair compensation for their work in an industry that is becoming increasingly reliant on AI technology.
AI-altered images of celebrities are being used to promote products without their consent, raising concerns about the misuse of artificial intelligence and the need for regulations to protect individuals from unauthorized AI-generated content.
Generative AI tools are being used to clone the voices of voice actors without their permission, resulting in potential job loss and ethical concerns in the industry.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has urged the US government to include AI voice cloning in its piracy watchdog list, citing infringement of copyright and the right to publicity as potential issues, specifically calling out Voicify.AI as a company that allows users to copy YouTube videos and modify them using AI voice models of popular music artists.
The RIAA has requested that AI voice cloning be added to the government's piracy watch list, as they believe it infringes on copyrights and artists' rights; they specifically called out Voicify.AI as a site that should be scrutinized.
A bipartisan bill, called the NO FAKES Act, has been introduced to protect performers' likeness from unauthorized digital replicas created through generative AI technology. The bill aims to hold individuals and platforms accountable for producing and hosting such content, while exempting certain replicas based on First Amendment protections.
The bipartisan NO FAKES Act, introduced by four U.S. senators, aims to protect performers from the unauthorized use of their voice and likeness in AI-generated replicas, with SAG-AFTRA and the Motion Picture Association supporting the bill.
A bipartisan bill called the No Fakes Act aims to establish federal protection for performers by standardizing rules around the unauthorized use of their faces and voices, but some experts warn that it may not offer additional safeguards beyond existing copyright and right of publicity laws.
A bipartisan group of U.S. senators has introduced a draft legislation called the NO FAKES Act, which aims to protect artists and others from AI-generated deepfakes of their likeness, voice, or image without permission. The bill would create a federal right for artists to sue those who create digital replicas of their identity without consent. The legislation includes carveouts for news coverage, parody, historical works, or criticism.
The NO FAKES Act, a bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate, aims to protect performers from unauthorized digital replicas created using generative artificial intelligence (AI), while exempting certain replicas that fall under First Amendment protections such as news, sports broadcasts, documentaries, and satire.
The No FAKES Act, a newly proposed bipartisan senate bill, aims to provide legal protection to actors and recording artists against the unauthorized use of their likeness in AI-generated deepfakes.
A bipartisan group of US senators has introduced a bill called the NO FAKES Act, which aims to ban the unauthorized use of AI-powered replicas of people's voices and images, with penalties starting at $5,000 per violation, while allowing limited protected uses under the First Amendment. This bill is seen as a step towards protecting artists and creatives from the unauthorized use of their likeness.
