The actor told an audience in London that AI was a “burning issue” for actors.

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Copyright infringement, which, in this context, is still a seriously concerning crime.

      • OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not copyright infringement. You can’t copyright a style, which is basically what a voice amounts to.

        This is something new. It’s a way of taking something that we always thought of as belonging to a person, and using it without their permission.

        At the moment the closest thing is trademark infringement, assuming you could trademark your personal identity (which you can’t). The harms are basically the same, deliberately passing off something cheap or dodgy as if it was associated with a particular entity. Doesn’t matter if the entity is Stephen fry or Pepsi Max.

        • gregorum@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It is, as a matter of fact. When Fry recorded his voice for those audiobooks, they were copyrighted. Reproducing the contents of those works as they have is, arguably a violation of copyright.

          And when you compare Steven Frye to Pepsi Max, that’s a false equivalence, because you’re comparing a copyrighted material to a trademarked brand which are two different things.

          Still, to your point of theft, nobody is taking anything from anyone. They are using something without permission, and that still falls squarely as copyright infringement, not theft.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Reproducing the contents of those works as they have is

            This did not occur.

            • gregorum@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              When they reproduced Fry’s voice with an AI based on what they captured from the copyrighted audiobook, that’s precisely what happened. Just because you refuse to understand or admit it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                That’s not reproduction of content so isn’t a copyright violation. Not shouldn’t be. Literally right now is not.

                The whole reason people are so up in arms about this is that we do not currently have laws or even standards that accurately police this kind of thing.

                • gregorum@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  That is not for you to decide. That is for a court to decide. By the letter of the law, and how current copyright law is written, it very clearly is.

                  • SCB@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I am describing the current situation. You are the one describing events you hope to occur.