AI to voice the additional dialogue?

[morpheus562]

I am not an attorney, but I don't think case law has been established here to say whether or not you can use ai to copy Edwin's voice (I'm sure @CamDawg would hate even more lines from Edwin). As such, big corporations could legally be in the right to protect their voice actors and bleed out anyone using ai to copy their voices. Legal stuff aside, I think some of the voice actors who worked on these games have come out directly against using their likeness without permission. That's enough for me right there. 

[BobT]

I keep seeing this stated that some actors have come out against it, which and where? I'm not disputing that, I'd just really like to see their arguments and see if there is an actual rational argument somewhere that would make me change my mind. 
So far all I've seen is the BG3 narrator getting mods removed, where her voice hasn't even been the one used in a model lol.. 

And sure they COULD, but they equally COULD NOT, yes? Our law is prohibitive, not permissary.  Currently complainants are being challenged to prove their claims under existing law, and as I posted earlier, that's not working out so well. 

Also again, how is the character EDWIN the "likeness" of the VA? I don't believe the actor even sounds like that? 
There's also the arguments of the voice already being public domain now, via it being sold to a company for the work.. 
Are cosplayers impersonating the "likeness" of an actor when they dress up as someone from their favourite movie? 

I really hope this does all get fully thrashed out in court soon. There's a few cases ongoing regarding the art side of things and one from NY Times around ChatGPT (LOL they're complaining it summarises articles which is exactly what they do..), but yet to see one around the voice work. Hopefully some get lodged soon so we can find out for sure. 

Edited January 11 by BobT

[Guest the_sextein]

If a voice actor is replaced by a new one in a sequel, they don't need to get the permission from the first voice actor to have someone new impersonate the character with a similar likeness.  It would be wrong in my opinion for a studio to make a sequel without bringing back the cast to do the new work just because it's cheaper to use AI but I don't think they can get sued unless they explicitly state that the voice was done by the VA when it wasn't.  Impersonations are not against the law and the AI would not be impersonating the VA but the fictional character that the VA voiced which is now owned by the company that hired the VA in the first place.  All that being said, we are talking about mods that are not being sold for money and it's fanfiction so I don't see a problem with it.  If you hired your next door neighbor to do an impression of a character for one of your mods and it sounded just like the original VA you could not get sued unless you pretended that you hired the original VA to do the work.  If a mod uses AI to make pre rendered backdrops they don't need permission from the artists who made the original backdrops because they are not claiming that said artist made it.  It's simply an imitation of the style of art so that the fanfiction mod can blend with the original work. It would be no different if a new artist was hired to make backdrops that fit with the original game art for an expansion pack.   

As long as it's stated that it's AI and not the VA then it's not a problem especially since this is not being sold as a product and is a free fan made mod.  In the same vain, you can't use licensed music but you can us AI modified tracks that sound similar because it's not the same song that is copywritten.  Just pausing the track on a youtube review is enough to bypass copyright laws.  I'm not talking about morals or a sense of right and wrong.  I'm talking about the technicalities behind what companies and your average joe can get away with.  Using AI to copy an actors voice and posting online to pretend they said something they didn't is not ok and using AI to make videos of people saying things they didn't say is not ok either.  This is because these are claiming to be the actual person even though it's an imitation.  So if a Disney movie sequel uses an AI voice to mimic an actor from the first movie they can't claim that the character is voiced by the popular VA in the sequel but they can make it sound the same and not get sued.  Actors have claimed that their likeness was used in video games without their consent but since the character model is not exactly the same as them then all the devs have to say is that it was an approximation of pop culture trends and nothing will happen to them.  The Last Of Us had that happen and GTA 6 is having that happen already due to similarities of characters in the game that are clearly referencing certain people and events but they are not carbon copies or claiming that it is the actual person from the real world.  That is why they make statements at the end of movies saying that it's a work of fiction and any connection with real people or events are coincidental and not intended.  They clearly reference events and people but don't claim it's actually them or an accurate depiction of something that happened and that covers them legally.

[morpheus562]

Jennifer Hale (Mazzy Fenton, Fem Shep, and a host of other memorable characters) has spoken out against it. 

If you want to make a mod using ai to add Edwin's voice to more dialog, self host it, and be willing to be the legal case study for this, then that's your prerogative. 

I think we are left with legally murky water and the express desire from some in that community to not do this action. I don't really need more than that. I believe any discussion on this topic is more philosophical at this point.

[Guest the_sextein]

I can make an exact replica of an AK47 machine gun and include it in a game that I am selling on steam and nothing will happen unless I call it an AK47.  You have to pay the company for the ability to pretend it's an actual replica.  Same with cars in video games.  Same with VA's.  As long as you don't claim it's them you can't get in trouble even if they don't like it.  That's just the way it is.  I think alot  of people live in an idealistic world and they don't like the idea that people can and will be replaced by machines but it's happening every day.   Not just with AI but with automation.  It's perfectly legal to replace labor for cheap alternatives as long as it's clear that cheap alternatives are being used when you sell the product.  It's shouldn't even be a consideration when making mods, if it were then we couldn't mimic toasters, cars, human beings or anything else.

[CamDawg]

5 hours ago, BobT said:

I'd say in general that the legal right to do so is actually primary lol (though I agree that your personal or the team's subjective priorities can be different), people can't just decide others can't lawfully use something because they "don't like" it, else we end up in a world where Apple copyrights the word Apple, etc. The music and movie industries also "don't like" a lot of practices as they'd love to restrict more for more money, same with the "right to repair" and so on. 

I think you're overgeneralizing my answer. I'm perfectly willing not to use AI to mimic a VA's actual work as I think it's a reasonable request from artists I respect. Apple's ongoing attempts to destroy right of repair or Disney's quest to make copyright never expire will continue to receive the same GFY that I've always given them, no matter how politely they ask.

5 hours ago, BobT said:

However I see that you're listed in the BG1 NPC Project credits (thankyou for your work!) so I'll take this as an official response and where I disagree with some of the premises, I'm happy with the response to the actual question regarding the possibility of using this for the BG1 NPC Project mod by the team, cheers. Happy for your post to also to be treated as the "solved/answered" post if that's possible on here. I've linked it in the OP. 

I've helped on the technical, but not creative, side of the mod. I'd characterize my contributions as minor at best, especially when contrasted against the work of others, and that it's very kind that BG1 NPC mentions me at all. This is a long-winded way to say that I'm not the final arbiter on this issue generally or specifically.

[Granger77]

I'd feel really weird and probably refuse to play a mod that was AI-voiced, especially if it went against the actor's wishes. I see that as coming from a place of disrespect and disregard for artists.

I don't care if it's "too emotional"; it feels like the right thing to do.

[BobT]

Guest the_sextein, excellent post and my exact argument, and references this exact situation and not stupid hypothetical like "locking eyes with an attractive dog" etc. (still, wtf??). 
I also like how you highlighted the difference between imitation and impersonation. 

Quote

Jennifer Hale (Mazzy Fenton, Fem Shep, and a host of other memorable characters) has spoken out against it. 

If you want to make a mod using ai to add Edwin's voice to more dialog, self host it, and be willing to be the legal case study for this, then that's your prerogative. 

I think we are left with legally murky water and the express desire from some in that community to not do this action. I don't really need more than that. I believe any discussion on this topic is more philosophical at this point.

What have they said? Again I'm not doubting you, I'd just be curious to hear their exact argument as maybe there's a perspective I haven't thought of. 
So far all I've seen is knee-jerk emotional reactions such as "it's gross" and "I don't like it" and references to jobs etc. which are irrelevant when considering free hobby mods.
Even regarding the job-front, the pandara's box is already open. You're all sat here communicating on this forum than via carrier pidgeon after all, just how did the carrier pidgeon handlers feel when new tech came along that completely replaced them. Did we all stop using it just because they "didn't like it"? No, you're all here posting lol. 

[BobT]

14 hours ago, CamDawg said:

I think you're overgeneralizing my answer. I'm perfectly willing not to use AI to mimic a VA's actual work as I think it's a reasonable request from artists I respect. Apple's ongoing attempts to destroy right of repair or Disney's quest to make copyright never expire will continue to receive the same GFY that I've always given them, no matter how politely they ask.

I've helped on the technical, but not creative, side of the mod. I'd characterize my contributions as minor at best, especially when contrasted against the work of others, and that it's very kind that BG1 NPC mentions me at all. This is a long-winded way to say that I'm not the final arbiter on this issue generally or specifically.

Indeed but there's degrees of reasonableness as to whether I'd personally honour the request or not. 
Regardless, I made the topic to see what the possibilities were specifically for the BG1 NPCProject mod as I loved the extra dialogue, and the only thing immersion breaking was the music (understandably) playing rather than the voice lines, different to the rest of the game. With how awesome the AI tech is looking, that could be finally smoothed over and implemented, as the tech wasn't available back then. 

However if you guys don't wish to do it then it's irrelevant what I think, the answer is either no or not at this time and that's fine and answers my question. I understand you personally are not the final arbiter but it at least means there's no current plans to do it. That's fine. 
Also it doesn't matter how small your contribution was, you still worked on it, so thankyou. Many people enjoyed that mod over the years.

[BobT]

4 hours ago, Granger77 said:

I'd feel really weird and probably refuse to play a mod that was AI-voiced, especially if it went against the actor's wishes. I see that as coming from a place of disrespect and disregard for artists.

I don't care if it's "too emotional"; it feels like the right thing to do.

Depends how reasonable the request is. Most people don't even know who the human being behind the voices are. 
If anything imitation is one of the highest forms of flattery, if it was me I'd be honoured someone would want to carry on my work in a 20+ year old game and enjoy more content (without me having to do anything), which also brings and keeps more players, more royalties for me for the work I'd already done, without having to lift a finger for more! (if that's a thing). 
Such FREE and TRANSPARENT work is only a homage to the original work / characters, that's what modding is all about. 

But of course everyone's different and while I would disagree with you abiding by an unreasonable request (if so), you're perfectly free to do so! 

[moggadeet]

This is one article that I found about voice actors' responses to AI. Some excerpts:

"Excuse me?  With all due respect…you state in the article “Approved by affected members of the union’s voiceover performer community.”  Nobody in our community approved this that I know of. Games are the bulk of my livelihood and have been for years. Who are you referring to?" (Steve Blum, source)

"We don't have to be anti-AI but we DO need:  TRANSPARENCY: No one was told about Replica
INFORMED CONSENT: To know what this agreement entails & whether it considers the technological abilities of AI
CONTROL: Able to remove our voices from platform AND from the AI model itself" (Melissa Medina, source)

"Studios will look past creativity for convenience and this will potentially have a detrimental effect on artists." (Thomas Mitchell, source)

This is in response to the SAG-AFTRA agreement re: AI voices, which has led to a number of other voice actors sharing their frustrations. If your voice is your livelihood, technology that renders you replaceable is not only dangerous, it poisons the talent pool. What company is going to hire an up and coming voice actor they actually have to pay if they can just pay for a replica of [insert popular actor]'s voice?

If voice actors are saying "we want some amount of control over how our voices get used," then respecting their work also means respecting their wishes.

[BobT]

1 hour ago, moggadeet said:

This is one article that I found about voice actors' responses to AI. Some excerpts:

"Excuse me?  With all due respect…you state in the article “Approved by affected members of the union’s voiceover performer community.”  Nobody in our community approved this that I know of. Games are the bulk of my livelihood and have been for years. Who are you referring to?" (Steve Blum, source)

"We don't have to be anti-AI but we DO need:  TRANSPARENCY: No one was told about Replica
INFORMED CONSENT: To know what this agreement entails & whether it considers the technological abilities of AI
CONTROL: Able to remove our voices from platform AND from the AI model itself" (Melissa Medina, source)

"Studios will look past creativity for convenience and this will potentially have a detrimental effect on artists." (Thomas Mitchell, source)

This is in response to the SAG-AFTRA agreement re: AI voices, which has led to a number of other voice actors sharing their frustrations. If your voice is your livelihood, technology that renders you replaceable is not only dangerous, it poisons the talent pool. What company is going to hire an up and coming voice actor they actually have to pay if they can just pay for a replica of [insert popular actor]'s voice?

If voice actors are saying "we want some amount of control over how our voices get used," then respecting their work also means respecting their wishes.

Like I said I agree with them! But Pandora's box is already open with that. We don't still use carrier pidgeons, do we? It's natural for those affected to be concerned, though. 
Regardless, ALL that article and situation is irrelevant to this topic as once again that's about JOBS and MONEY and COMPANIES. Corporates using and publishing voice models for what would otherwise be paid work. Completely IRRELEVANT to HOBBY MODDING. 

I've already said posts back that regarding corporations and jobs, I absolutely agree they should not only have some sort of royalty scheme where their input has contributed to a model, that the significant output of which is now generating money, but they should also have some sort of independent support for negotiating contracts around that, and I fully support them in that endeavour. Seems that this "union" has screwed them over, there. 


But once again that is irrelevant for HOBBY MODDING (this topic) where the model will never be distributed, only the output (which is functionally no different to using traditional tools or an impressionist), and there was never a question of paid work as it's modders doing it for free out of love for the hobby and the game or whatever they're doing, not a corporation exploiting them. 
I already said for modding, any input or anything used for reference should be credited (no different to now), no AI model should be distributed (only the output), and everything should be fully transparent on what's original and what's the modders contribution.

I really don't understand this complete inability from a lot of the AI crowd to differentiate between completely different situations. It's an immediate knee-jerk reaction of AI being the devil and "gross" just because it COULD be used for negative outcomes, and completely ignoring the positive ones. Once again regarding potentially used for negative outcomes, so can the computer or other device you're using. But you don't stop using that, do you? 

Edited January 12 by BobT

[Guest the_sextein]

These opinions are of course, regarding a Hollywood studio using their voice one time and then never paying them again because they can just continue to use it over and over with AI.  Imitating someone's voice in a mod for a game that is not hiring VA's or claiming it's the work of VA's and is not making profit from the vocal performance is not the same thing.  Naturally they are going to be against it in the professional realm and the reasons why are obvious.  I seriously doubt anyone would care if a different voice actor did a free impersonation of a VA for a free mod.  Weather the impersonation is done by a high school kid or an AI shouldn't matter.  If I were to make a mod and I recorded my own lines for Khalid and they sounded very close to the original VA, do you really think anyone would get offended or angry?  As long as I state that I recorded them and not the VA and that I did my best to match the VA's performance for the sake of blending it with the original performance from 20 years ago.

When I was in college I used to play in a band, we played cover songs and our vocalist always tried to capture the style of the singer he was standing in for.  We played bars and got paid for it and nobody cared because we were not pretending to be the musicians that we were covering.  Metallica didn't like that people could download their music for free on the internet but they didn't care if garage bands and fans of the band played their music in public.  If anything it's a tribute and a show of respect.  They are not losing out on money because none was offered in the first place and nobody is tarnishing their reputation if they are not claiming to be the actual VA and are very up front about it.  If a vocalist uses a digital tool to match the performance of the artist he is covering it would not offend anyone so why should it here?

All said and done, there are tons of data entry jobs that are going to disappear because of AI.  Most models that do advertising are going to be replaced by AI generated people that never existed.  Automation has already consumed millions of jobs and will be replacing fast food employee's in the near future.  Politicians have moved jobs overseas with their decisions that wiped out the auto industry and all of the skilled laborers that worked hard at perfecting a skill for years and nobody cried for them.

[BobT]

2 hours ago, Guest the_sextein said:

These opinions are of course, regarding a Hollywood studio using their voice one time and then never paying them again because they can just continue to use it over and over with AI.  Imitating someone's voice in a mod for a game that is not hiring VA's or claiming it's the work of VA's and is not making profit from the vocal performance is not the same thing.  Naturally they are going to be against it in the professional realm and the reasons why are obvious.  I seriously doubt anyone would care if a different voice actor did a free impersonation of a VA for a free mod.  Weather the impersonation is done by a high school kid or an AI shouldn't matter.  If I were to make a mod and I recorded my own lines for Khalid and they sounded very close to the original VA, do you really think anyone would get offended or angry?  As long as I state that I recorded them and not the VA and that I did my best to match the VA's performance for the sake of blending it with the original performance from 20 years ago.

When I was in college I used to play in a band, we played cover songs and our vocalist always tried to capture the style of the singer he was standing in for.  We played bars and got paid for it and nobody cared because we were not pretending to be the musicians that we were covering.  Metallica didn't like that people could download their music for free on the internet but they didn't care if garage bands and fans of the band played their music in public.  If anything it's a tribute and a show of respect.  They are not losing out on money because none was offered in the first place and nobody is tarnishing their reputation if they are not claiming to be the actual VA and are very up front about it.  If a vocalist uses a digital tool to match the performance of the artist he is covering it would not offend anyone so why should it here?

All said and done, there are tons of data entry jobs that are going to disappear because of AI.  Most models that do advertising are going to be replaced by AI generated people that never existed.  Automation has already consumed millions of jobs and will be replacing fast food employee's in the near future.  Politicians have moved jobs overseas with their decisions that wiped out the auto industry and all of the skilled laborers that worked hard at perfecting a skill for years and nobody cried for them.

Thankyou so much for actually recognising my argument in the situation that it's actually referencing, rather than a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT situation (free mods vs companies doing actors out of paid work). 
Even for modders I'd be very much against anyone publicly distributing a model too btw, (even though others could just make one themselves), purely as that could easily be picked up and used by companies where they'd have to put even less effort in. So yeah that I'd be against on principle. I think any mods should only publish OUTPUT and never the actual model. 
Then it's as I and you are saying, the end result is no different to the same being done with traditional digital tools, or a skilled impressionist doing something similar. It shouldn't matter how that end result was reached, every aspect is going to be the same anyway so whether it's AI or not is functionally irrelevant. 

[Thacobell]

"I totally respect actor's wishes, unless they go against my own! Its totally different you guys!"
"The ends justify the means! This is a totally reasonable argument!"
"The people who don't agree with me aren't even responding to me! Clearly the only one who has agrees with me! Otherwise they wouldn't disagree!"