BobT

I can see professional VAs doing more stuff where they "lend" their voices to models. But as a modder if you already have someone there doing the VA, why would you bother with the AI? Unless it's just to fill in bits that need to be done when they're unavailable (in which case, good use of AI!). I don't really see the point of a full voice replacement, but again there's no difference to what's already available NOW with that. Even with a partial replacement, that can and is already done via traditional tools. AI just optimises the process..

Yeah it's bonkers how close it is! I mean if DIRECTLY compare side by side you'd be able to tell but I think as modded content it would integrate smoothly without breaking immersion. Apparently takes a lot of work to have it get the accent right, but pleased with the results.

Friend has done some further tweaking, have a listen to this! https://voca.ro/1fpIF6dBfSYJ https://voca.ro/1l4TXSfrXKuE All recorded using HER voice, and having to "put on" the accent to get it right. It's not just a push-button job. Again, COULD be done just the same by traditional means / human imitation, however this tech optimises the approach. Absolutely amazing! This will be great for remastering older games. Remember also that even if one was to get a human VA back to re-do it, their voice will have probably changed (or sometimes sadly, lost it altogether) after 20 years or longer. Regardless, for MODDING this tech is awesome.

Ahhh right. Thought you meant the game called it. And yeah, Pandora's box is pretty much open now. Feel sorry for the young people dating or chatting over the internet nowadays! Used to always be able to defeat the "Catfishes" by asking for a custom picture, sticking tongue out or some daft pose that someone with a picture set wouldn't have (and reverse image search to double-check), good luck with that when they can just generate one lol.. As with using AI for other stuff (anything to do with dead people etc.) I DO recognise the general feeling of unease that comes when considering such stuff and how that can easily translate to being "gross" and leading to an emotional response etc. It IS going to be used for some very dodgy stuff. But as you said, the cat is out of the bag already on that, so my take is why let it be used for ONLY dodgy stuff and not benign things like enjoying more of video games / mods? Where everything is fully declared (as mentioned) and the only end result is exactly the same as if done with traditional tools or methods (just better quality / more accessible). I hope more have a reasonable response and consider it's positive applications fully rather than just continue to tarnish it via negative emotions and dismiss it outright. Like I said a good example is Amelia Tyler the narrator for BG3. I love her work but she's been having allsorts of narrator replacement mods taken down. due to them using AI, and recently had a male narrator mod removed that hadn't even used her voice in the model! The model is for the OUTPUT / TARGET voice, as in the man's, NOT hers! That is going too far in my book. Even the arguments already made here wouldn't cover that. No words being said in her voice, her voice not being part of any model, not in the output in any way blabla.

Ooh what mods have you got for Anomaly, that's the Tower Offence game yeah? I played the first one, if so. Anyways regarding the mods, I agree with you in practice there's nothing that could be done, but like yourself and David, I would also remove a mod if I received a REASONABLE or ACTIONABLE complaint. Such as where you said if the IP owner contacts and strongly suggests they'll pursue litigation, if I don't have the pockets or a good case, I'd remove. If a VA or someone else contacts, then it would depend on the "reasonableness" of the complaint. For me, If it was say, something they REALLY didn't want to be associated with (even with the disclaimers) I'd either change the content accordingly or remove that bit, or the mod. However if it's just "I don't like it" without any good reason and the mod isn't even reflecting on them, the human (as with the Edwin example) I'd probably not choose to honour that as "I don't like it" isn't a good enough reason in my book, when the OUTCOME IS THE SAME. And that reasonableness is also the same whether it's AI or not. Would "I don't like that you used Audacity to edit this, rather than my favourite xyz audio tool" be reasonable? To me, noop. And again, ANY use of AI would use offline models only, and not see any models distributed (only output), with clear disclaimers for transparency, blabla as before. with that, I can't see ANY difference (in outcome) between using AI or traditional tools / methods.

I don't recall seeing that, no. Right so we're talking "hobby" type situations that don't require money then. Well...they can then still just do it? If someone has a ready and willing voice actor available (especially one who wants to do it for free!) then why bother using AI or any other tool? No-one's stopping them still doing that? Same with the art stuff, no-one's stopping anyone still painting pictures or whatever their hobby is lol. Have at it!

Interesting! Thankyou. Hmm I guess the big test would be is the mod damaging in some way. I hope more of this stuff does get thrashed out (though it's rare any non-corpo side will bother / afford). Be nice to see a "right to modify" as with "right to repair" etc. Along with terms of no selling, fully transparent blablabla.

Can ya gimme a bit of info on this one? I keep just finding "Neverwinter Nights", or is that the same? I'm gonna guess here but is it one of those "mods" where they've essentially remastered a game in another game? Are they selling it? I presume with that one the "fair use" stuff will be a stretch, if they've just taken an existing game and plonked it in another. Most mods though add NEW or vastly CHANGED content, and for free, and require the base game to already be bought & paid for to use, rather than just redistributing the IP owner's work.

It is. But how much are we talking? Should they start paying writers and artists, too? Isn't the point of mods that they DON'T have the resources and funds of a studio, and are doing it as a hobby?

Right, so there's lots of work for paid voice actors in the modding area, is there? Especially for 20 year old games?

What work is a FREE MOD taking away from voice actors? There was never any "work" for the VA to do, the modder is, and always was, doing it all, and not making any money from it themselves either. We're also talking about a TWENTY YEAR OLD game here lol. There's not even any "damages" since mods encourage more people to play and continue playing the game, and every modder and user (as long as not pirating) has bought the game, therefore the VA has already been paid for the work they have done. And Morpheus, as to the whole "legal" side my female friend had a quick crack at Edwin here: Think her and vocaroo are going to be in tonnes of legal trouble from Edwin's VA? Think he'd even succeed if he tried? How does the above damage or defame or directly copy (in a non-transformative manner) from Edwin's VA (Jim Meskimen) the human being? Btw that VA also did the "Jebadoh, Khalid, Thaldorn" character's voices, do THEY all reflect on the human being, too? How could they ALL, when they're different voices? See how this isn't so simple as you're making out? Yes again, lawfare exists where large companies with deeper pockets can just drag something out, but as GTS says, it doesn't just jump straight into costs, there's a process before that. And I REALLY don't think someone using the "deeper pockets" approach if don't have a reasonable case will go down very well. Just look at the bad rep that Monster Energy is getting for what they're doing to other companies that simply use the word "monster". Is that really something we should want to encourage? Again I wouldn't personally just refuse to take anything down either, if I personally received a request from a VA or their lawyers, however it would have to be REASONABLE for me to do so, not just "I don't like it".

You're still making comparisons to situations that focus on money being made, Steam, Disney, SAG stuff. These are all irrelevant to FREE mods that abide by fair / transformative use. Again, what about the Duke Nukem voice being the default for Teamspeak TTS? And the other thousands of iterations that use it. Think the VA for Duke gave his permission for all of them? And that's TTS where you "can make it say anything" oh no! Is that bringing the original VA into disrepute just because "Duke" says something? And that's with existing tools and iterations that have been around for over 20 years lol. Same thing, no outcry. No-one is also forcing or specifically expecting certain modders or mod sites to do anything, I accepted a member of the NPCProject team's response immediately, even if I disagreed with some parts of it. I really don't get why this is so hard to grasp.

But "if you log eyes with an attractive dog"....

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.

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?

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!

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.

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. 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.

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.

Oh I mentioned those points (including your personal subjective decisions, which are fine! Your choice) in my posts above, though there's a lot so I forgive if missed it. I also agree there is a difference yes. However how different is the END RESULT to say, opening and tweaking those files in Audacity? Or an impressionist doing the same with one's own voice? I also agree (and mentioned) the bit about large corporations etc. being able to bleed dry with dragging out a case, even if they were legally in the wrong. Such weaponisation of law though would hardly help the argument though, would it lol.

Also, I'm curious what people think of my friend's have-a-go here: Would anyone say that's the Edwin VA's "likeness" and would require his consent? She also used her OWN voice to record that, btw. I think it's a pretty good start! I can only imagine how good it'd be if done properly and polished. The SAME result could also be achieved via traditional tools, btw. Albeit slower and less efficient.

Sure! But what's morally "right" is subjective isn't it, and will be different on a case by case basis. Would say, someone agree with a politician attempting to silence and prevent someone from performing who does impressions of them? And such impressions are frequently degrading in nature! Now how about when that's completely benign? If some sort of reasonable argument is given, I think most would be open to listening, as morpheus562 obviously is.

EXACTLY. And I'd love to see how hobby modders doing a FREE extension to a 26 year old game, fully credited and transparent (especially regarding what's AI and not), could be argued to be damaging in any way lol. Even the jobs / money argument is moot as there was never any additonal work to be paid for, and the VAs had been fully paid for the work they had done already by the modders and every single user, buying the base game. The only additional work done is by the modders. There's a lot of emotive work around using "someone's voice", yet that "voice" has already been sold to a corporation for money and now in public and the audio files now owned by the buyers! I'd agree completely to strike off anything that was based on private recordings, though. Also I'd love to see how say for example, the VA for Edwin arguing that more of the Edwin voice is using "his" likeness, when it's the character's.. Thankyou too for this excellent post, btw. A rational post (though I'm fine if people disagree with your own opinions) primarily based in fact and using case law examples and similarities to existing situations rather than a knee-jerk reaction or emotive arguments, be that for or against. I've linked this in the OP, too.

I'd disagree with this a lot. Law is prohibitive, rather than permissive. Unless it's explicitly prohibited we absolutely DO have the right and it's up to the complainant to PROVE that we do not. It's not just US copyright law, other countries all have free / fair use and transformative work policies. Even the VERY heavily regulated music industry allows "covers" of songs and much more lol. Transformative use isn't that a high barrier to clear, sometimes even if the content is the same, just a different USE for the content is enough for it to be "transformative". Regardless, it's the knee-jerk and overly emotive reactions I have a major problem with, such as the BG3 Narrator (Amelia Tyler) has been getting alternate narrator mods pulled from Nexus and other sites, yet many of those mods (such as the Male Narrator ones) haven't used her voice in any sort of model, since the model is made for the OUTPUT voice, the man! It's going to be better once some court cases get thrashed out and clear a lot of this up I think. There's a prominent one regarding the art side of things where they've mostly gotten thrown out already and the remaining bits are being challenged by the judge to prove that their specific copyrighted work has been substantially used in an output, which I think they've not got a chance of doing. I specifically mentioned FREE, so why are you bringing up payments? Also anyone can send a cease & desists letter lol, I could send one to you. Doesn't mean I have ANY right to actually make you comply, that would have to be proven in court. Usually though it's a game of bluff and most usually comply as they don't have deep enough pockets to fight it, even if they were to be in the right, large corporations can easily draw a case out to bleed anyone else's pockets dry. Still though as I mentioned before, it's all about the specific case. Where money or jobs are involved, that's a VERY different situation, and I'm all for creators getting as much protection as possible from exploitation.

"That voice actors, individually and/or collectively, have asked me not to do it is sufficient." < Which actors and why btw? Just out of curiosity. 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. That's not saying that I'd not personally listen either of course, however there'd have to be a rational argument behind it, rather than a knee-jerk reaction. (That's the problem I have with a lot of the anti-AI stuff). I'd really love this sort of tool to be used for good as it could be amazing for games, especially remastering or extending old stuff. I think it would be a damned shame to leave it to only be used for malicious purposes because AI, like those knives in your kitchen drawer are a tool, it's what the human does with it that matters. 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.