French VO missing for months — we need answers

xR3ACTORx · February 2

Replacing Voice Actors with AI is something that Netflix and Amazon is also trying to push.

To be honest I am all for starting sanctioning all those exploitations by americans companies.

zenonuk · February 2

On a related AI voices note - old news story from last year - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/lara-croft-french-hollywood-paris-texas-b2832491.html

Given that ESO is 10+ years old and many of the voice actors have died in this time, it's sad to know that we'll never get any new story content from these characters - without a change in voice/impersonator, or AI to adjust historic recordings.

Perhaps there's a place for AI to fill the gap when a voice actor is no longer around, or for AI to help with translation when people are not available - but not at the expense of individual jobs and careers. If I was to guess (and it is a guess), I suspect the big companies are pushing for everything, the actors themselves are pushing for nothing, and the actual solution/compromise is to have some clauses (with royalties to an actors estate for X years after - copyright lasts for 50-70 years or so, at least in the UK, maybe that's a good time frame) that allows AI to be used in a clear set of scenarios (e.g. death, with permission due to unavailability, etc.). In any case, we'll see in time how this plays out, and in the interim we all loose out.

wrrn519_ESO · February 2

You are aware of the answer. MS cut people from ESO, thousands of them; short staffed, deadlines, priorities to people in bigger chairs that unfortunately think your something, is not a priority.

AzuraFan · February 2

zenonuk wrote: »

...that allows AI to be used in a clear set of scenarios (e.g. death, with permission due to unavailability, etc.). In any case, we'll see in time how this plays out, and in the interim we all loose out.

Death shouldn't bestow permission to do whatever anyone wants with someone's voice or likeness. For example, it wouldn't be ethical to use AI for a voice actor who wouldn't have agreed to the project if they were alive, because they would have found it offensive, or wouldn't have liked the role, or whatever reason. So unless someone has explicitly provided permission to let AI recreate their voice after death, it would be wrong to do so.

(Plus, I believe in giving living people jobs, people who need to eat and such, over giving roles to dead people.)

Syldras · February 2

AzuraFan wrote: »

Death shouldn't bestow permission to do whatever anyone wants with someone's voice or likeness. For example, it wouldn't be ethical to use AI for a voice actor who wouldn't have agreed to the project if they were alive, because they would have found it offensive, or wouldn't have liked the role, or whatever reason. So unless someone has explicitly provided permission to let AI recreate their voice after death, it would be wrong to do so.
(Plus, I believe in giving living people jobs, people who need to eat and such, over giving roles to dead people.)

I think if someone has given their consent (and consent is undebatable) on electronically using their voice after their death to continue voicing a specific character, it should be okay. One's voice doesn't belong to anybody else than oneself, so it should be a free decision what to do with it. Not for free, of course - but a reasonable compensation should go to the family, widow(er), children, parents, etc. Basically like the royalties for music or for novels - there, it's not uncommon at all that the family gets the continuing profits (from broadcasting/usage/printing rights and similar) after an artist's death (if they haven't sold the rights to someone else). Of course it remains everyone's personal decision. If I had a family I could support like this, I would personally do it.

That said, I sadly don't think that most big companies' interest in using AI generated voices is limited to such clear cases.

zenonuk · February 2

AzuraFan wrote: »

zenonuk wrote: »

...that allows AI to be used in a clear set of scenarios (e.g. death, with permission due to unavailability, etc.). In any case, we'll see in time how this plays out, and in the interim we all loose out.

Death shouldn't bestow permission to do whatever anyone wants with someone's voice or likeness. For example, it wouldn't be ethical to use AI for a voice actor who wouldn't have agreed to the project if they were alive, because they would have found it offensive, or wouldn't have liked the role, or whatever reason. So unless someone has explicitly provided permission to let AI recreate their voice after death, it would be wrong to do so.

(Plus, I believe in giving living people jobs, people who need to eat and such, over giving roles to dead people.)

Agreed, and I'm not saying it should. I'm not advocating a change in anything already covered by existing legal practices, frameworks, and country specific laws. This is all about where and how contract negotiations play out.

By way of another non-AI example: if any of us want to use Albert Einstein's likeness, we still need to seek appropriate licencing from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, to who he left the majority of his estate on death. We cannot just use his name, images, etc. without permission - whether through AI or real people in creative jobs, or me or you for that matter (subject to some very specific fair use aspects, but they are extremely limited such as mentioning him in this reply).

AI doesn't change existing practices, balancing the IP (e.g. the Prophet in ESO) and the ability for ZOS to introduce further voiced lore regarding their characters, with the rights of the individual actors (for the English dialogue, the late Sir Michael Gambon in the case of the Prophet) is not impossible. Contracts can have clauses that provide permissions for specific scenarios, with appropriate royalties as I noted, and everyone can be happy... it's not all or nothing.... but these are the negotiations that have to happen. Done correctly, I see AI opening opportunities, rather than taking away work from people.

As it stands, if we want more English Prophet dialogue, it'd need to be another actor mimicking the late Sir Michael Gambon, or doing the Prophet in a difference voice, or ZOS choosing to not doing anything with the original Prophet at all. I'm not sure we should stick with this outcome for all new IP created by ZOS (or any creative for that matter), when both ZOS and actors can benefit by thinking ahead for those scenarios where AI can add benefit, and royalties can continue to be paid to the actors whose voices continue to be used (whether that's using AI or not).

AzuraFan · February 3

Syldras wrote: »

I think if someone has given their consent (and consent is undebatable) on electronically using their voice after their death to continue voicing a specific character, it should be okay.

Of course. I said so in my post. If someone gives permission (consent), it's okay.

Not for free, of course - but a reasonable compensation should go to the family, widow(er), children, parents, etc. Basically like the royalties for music or for novels - there, it's not uncommon at all that the family gets the continuing profits (from broadcasting/usage/printing rights and similar) after an artist's death (if they haven't sold the rights to someone else). Of course it remains everyone's personal decision.

Well, there's the rub. Designated beneficiaries get compensation like that after someone's death due to copyright law. Right now, you can't copyright your voice or likeness. That's why many countries, and territories like the European Union, are in the process of figuring out how to deal with this.

zenonuk wrote:

AI doesn't change existing practices, balancing the IP (e.g. the Prophet in ESO) and the ability for ZOS to introduce further voiced lore regarding their characters, with the rights of the individual actors (for the English dialogue, the late Sir Michael Gambon in the case of the Prophet) is not impossible. Contracts can have clauses that provide permissions for specific scenarios, with appropriate royalties as I noted, and everyone can be happy... it's not all or nothing.... but these are the negotiations that have to happen. Done correctly, I see AI opening opportunities, rather than taking away work from people.

I stated that in my response ("unless someone has explicitly provided permission"). I was addressing your comment that I quoted, where you seemed to be saying that death would be a clear scenario when AI voices would be allowed carte blanche. I was disagreeing with that. Permission should be required, which would obviously have to have been given before death, as part of a contract or other type of agreement.

zenonuk wrote:

Done correctly, I see AI opening opportunities, rather than taking away work from people.

In the area we're speaking about, I'm not sure how it wouldn't take away work from people. If AI-generated voices and likenesses are used instead of real actors (voice and otherwise), that's taking work away from people. The only way to prevent that is if we, the consumers, choose not to consume AI-created content like that.

I'm not anti-AI. I use AI tools all the time. But I'm not in la-la land, either (not implying that you are, just saying I'm not as optimistic that AI will create a net-gain of jobs). Interesting times ahead.