Game News 2.0

sniper_samurai · 26-09-2023 11:31am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121158354#Comment_121158354

I agree, the only part of video game performance I don't mind them using AI for are the screams/grunts etc. as they are usually very damaging to the actors on long sessions, what they refer to as throat ripping.

Retr0gamer · 26-09-2023 11:33am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121158354#Comment_121158354

In fairness, mods are usually offered for free, passion projects so it could well fall under fair use. The big issue is the likes of Disney or WB using AI for voice acting or to create intros for their tv shows etc. and taking jobs away from the people whose work trained these AI models.

Retr0gamer · 26-09-2023 11:35am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121158378#Comment_121158378

It still counts towards their hours in the booth so they lose money and if they are using AI they really should be paying the actors whose work they trained the AI on as it wouldn't call under fair use.

sniper_samurai · 26-09-2023 11:40am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121158392#Comment_121158392

Indeed, just because they'd be using AI for it doesn't mean the actor shouldn't get paid for it. There are severe restrictions on session time for doing that kind of recording as is but it is still potentially damaging for the actors.

Steve Blum states that his hardest voice role was the Zombie Boss voice for Saint's Row, he had to sing in those grunts and groans in places.

johnny_ultimate · 26-09-2023 11:50am

While companies using AI copied voices for profit is obviously an extra layer of evil, modders using it should raise an eyebrow too. Unless the modders have the consent and blessing of the voice actors themselves, it'd be easy for tools to generate lines the actors themselves would not be comfortable saying. It's obviously different than financially motivated AI, but still leads to some ethical quagmires.

Penn · 26-09-2023 11:57am

I remember Troy Baker trying to work with a company where voice actors could sell their voice rights to the company, so the company could use their voice as AI for projects which couldn't normally afford to actually hire Troy Baker.

Which would essentially mean companies could use an AI Troy Baker voice instead of hiring another VA and say they had Troy Baker in their game, and Baker would earn money from games he wasn't actually doing anything for. He was rightfully lambasted for it and ended up pulling out and issuing an apology (not to mention the company he'd been partnering with were then caught stealing voice recordings and using them for their AI by people who never agreed to it).

So it'll be funny to see him out on the picket line talking about protecting voice artists jobs.

pixelburp · 26-09-2023 12:10pm

It's weird to me "Troy Baker" is even a thing in the first place. It's nice voice artists can become celebrities in the first instance, too often forgotten actors, but it's funny how Baker has basically become a brand in of himself.

26-09-2023 12:25pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121158385#Comment_121158385

In fairness, actor's voice likeness being stolen is wrong, regardless of who uses it. If it happened to you, I don't think knowing it's a free mod would soften the blow.

Imagine doing voice work, being paid a pittance to do it and now you hear some random person is using your voice to say God knows what. You have no control over this.

It's just wrong. No matter how you phrase it.

pixelburp · 26-09-2023 12:37pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121158624#Comment_121158624

It depends on what it's being used for, while it can also be down to the respective original person & their views. Some actors will be more receptive to the idea than others. Context is important too; generated lines for a mod would likely illicit a different response to your likeness used in a pornhub upload.

26-09-2023 12:44pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121158671#Comment_121158671

I disagree. What it's being used for isn't relevant. That voice actor agreed to record a number of lines for a set fee. That was the contract and exchange.

Now someone is taking that audio and manipulating it to extend the dialogue of that character beyond what the actor recorded, using the actors voice. The actor didn't agree to this. It's not right.

The argument seems to be that it's ok for modders to do it, but not ok for big companies to do the same. That's just simple bias.

It's either all ok and "fair use" or it isn't. Just because you love modders doesn't mean everything they do is right.

If your belief is based on "ooh that would be a cool mod" then maybe take more time to have a little empathy for the actors who's voice is being used without them being consulted or paid.

pixelburp · 26-09-2023 12:52pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121158708#Comment_121158708

It's a moral rats nest, but to take the concept of mods in the first place for a second: legally they're fair game as long as no money's made off copyrighted material; IIRC that's the general principle. And even then, publishers aren't always ok with even that. Conceptually that legal geounding, at the moment, would potentially jnclude Voicework. In which case, it comes down to whether the artist would consider it Fair Use and if not, lodge a complaint. It's gonna come down to what the consensus says from the artists - and their unions.

Further, do we extend these things out to Deep Fakes too, given they're doing the same thing? In which case that enter 1st Amendment territory given many deep fakes are used for comedic or satirical purposes. Deep Fakes have even larger potential fallout, but I believe ATM in America are protected by 1st amendment if they're made as comedic works.

There's no easy answers, even if morally the entire question is problematic at best.

26-09-2023 12:59pm

I'm just saying that we should put ourselves in the shoes of a voice actor who isn't ok with modders using their voice like this.

Let's leave aside the more questionable things that your voice could be used for.

Let's assume the modder has the very best intentions and used your voice to give an NPC more lore friendly dialogue and nothing more. What recourse does a voice actor even have in this scenario? Send a cease and desist to a teenage modder?

I just feel bad for the actors I guess.

Potential-Monke · 26-09-2023 5:35pm

If you're gonna extend AI voice acting issues to modders, then you'll have to do the same with likenesses. No more Thomas the Tank Engine or Nick Cage Skyrim, etc. I don't think you can control modders anyway, but a few legal cases and wins will put a stop to it. Im also sure Nicole Thompson wouldn't be too happy for her AI voice in a seedy RE porn game.

Varik · 26-09-2023 6:15pm

Last strike lasted 340 days and they "won" by accepting practically the same offer they were given at the start, they didn't get royalties and the safety/vocal stress stuff in the agreement was entirely toothless.

Also deep fakes might be using AI but they are not the same thing, Deep fake AI were trained on one very large group of images but those images aren't used in the actual output a person would be using them for. They use a secondary library that is manipulated from those images, the copyrighted content is part of it whether fair use applies or not.

AI voicework isn't speak and spell or some 90s sound chip, the copyrighted content isn't in the final output.

26-09-2023 7:05pm

I wonder if people will feel the same way if/when AI replaces them in their role.

🤔

Retr0gamer · 26-09-2023 7:39pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121160406#Comment_121160406

The reason this strike is going ahead is because the recent strike sets legal precedence. It's practically a shoe in the will get the same terms save some bone headed legal team screw up by the union. It's a very different legal landscape now.

Varik · 26-09-2023 7:43pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121160710#Comment_121160710

They can't set legal precedent, and the fact you think they can is ridiculous and shows how clueless you are.

Retr0gamer · 26-09-2023 8:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121160722#Comment_121160722

Its very common in law and usually sees a raft of similar legal cases being made as the case can be referenced

https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/what-is-a-legal-precedent-definition-and-case-law-resources/#:~:text=Legal%20precedents%20are%20when%20a,of%20a%20later%20similar%20case.

The legal precedence in this case is that the strikers will get paid during the strike so can't be waited out by the companies.

Varik · 26-09-2023 8:12pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121160807#Comment_121160807

judges' and in some country/case tribunals set precedents, they don't get set by private labour contracts.

By your nonsense logic, they'd have gotten royalties long ago rather than failing last time.

Exclamation Marc · 26-09-2023 9:06pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121160807#Comment_121160807

This isn't legal precedence. The outcome or resolution of the strike was not due to a court decision.

pixelburp · 26-09-2023 9:15pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121158765#Comment_121158765

As mentioned already, we already have mods that make use of copyright material and actors' likenesses; the scenario does exist, and it'll take precedent or an exceptional case to define what'll be legal, if not moral. For now though there's a degree of wriggle room.

You say "send a cease and desist" but that's precisely how it works ATM. Nintendo (a corporation admittedly with more clout than a single actor) are notorious for killing any and all mods that try to use Nintendo IPs. If Actor X had serious concerns about some AI generated lines I daresay they could get it removed from NexusMods "easily" enough.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121160578#Comment_121160578

Dunno, ask me on 20 years cos I keep hearing AI is gonna replace web developers like me. But I also know IT departments don't upgrade their shít if they can help it; there'll be plenty of legacy code for grey developers like me to fix and maintain 😂

Exclamation Marc · 26-09-2023 11:13pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121161117#Comment_121161117

To be fair, Actor X doesn't have the clout and resources of Nintendo and saying that if Nintendo can do it then a random actor can is just not true in reality.

People bow to Nintendo cease and desist letters because Nintendo have seriously deep pockets and can/will drag these people through court on principle alone using vastly experienced and ruthless legal teams. Actor X doesn't have those deep pockets and likely wouldn't be able to afford a sustained legal challenge.

CastorTroy · 27-09-2023 1:13pm

If previous experience has shown anything, while the Writers and Actors strike had others saying "It'll delay shows I'm interested in but hope they get what they're owed", people striking for games will likely get death threats for causing delays to a game.