According to SAG AFTRA, the deal will “enable Replica to engage SAG-AFTRA members under a fair, ethical agreement to safely create and license a digital replica of their voice. Licensed voices can be used in video game development and other interactive media projects from pre-production to final release.”

The deal reportedly includes minimum terms and the requirement for performers’ consent to use their voice for AI.

However, several prominent video game voice actors were quick to respond on X, specifically to a portion of the statement which claims the deal was approved by “affected members of the union’s voiceover performer community.”

Apex Legends voice actor Erika Ishii wrote: “Approved by… WHO exactly?? Was any one of the ‘affected members’ who signed off on this a working voice actor?”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I think it would be better for all involved if we figure this out now. Existing Voice Actors should not have their performances used without their explicit consent. Any performances used by current or past voice actors must have explicit consent and compensation. "New" voices generates by AI must be sufficiently differing from existing performances and any existing performances used in the generation must have consent by the original voice actor.

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Existing performances must not be used to train models. If you wish to train a model you should need explicit consent and hire an actor to record such data. The actor should also receive royalties when the resulting model is used for a commercial purpose.

See, minus the royalty part (in most cases) this has been how VOCALOID, SynthV and the like has more or less operated for two decades now.

[–] Rhaedas@kbin.social 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

New creations from existing training data from an actor should have some type of royalties involved. The complication with that is the AI tools are largely a black box and it can be murky on where things come from.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Thats a solid and necessary addition. This comment section alone has already done more than any regulators. Its like they're afraid to at least lay down protective ground rules so VAs can continue to eat. Too much profit salivation.

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

New voices generated by AI can't be covered under copyright law, so I doubt they will see much use from corporations.

[–] KillerTofu@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Yet. Once upon a time we couldn’t patent an organism and yet now GMOs and companies like Monsanto abuse the legal framework.

[–] arquebus_x@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

That's correct, but it's important to distinguish something explicitly here. The voices may not be copyrightable, but the dialogue is, as long as it's not also generated by AI (i.e., dynamically generated). Also, the trained model that generates the voice is still proprietary: only its product (and only the sound itself, not the words if the speech is from a script) can be openly used.