I mean even then, its odd but I don’t see a problem if modders aren’t selling the mod as a “expansion” to users. Ai voices are iffy but they can bring so much cool things to the modding scene. The biggest problem is when large corporations like Rockstar/Take two/etc start using them to replace actual voice actors. A modder isn’t going to have the money to pay an A list voice actor to voice act in their mod
Edit: I do think it does cross a bit of a line if said mod is a sex mod but realistically that isn’t a logical difference between that and a normal mod but it does feel like its crossing a line.
I’m in other topics arguing that training on copyrighted content is not infringement in any way, but I think using someone’s likeness is different and probably not legal, because there are separate laws there.
You can usually get away with it if you have deniability, but I don’t think straight up adding lines to characters gives you any way to argue that.
Its iffy isn’t it? Like we have to remember video game mods are a whole can of worms and they are plainly in a gray area for many regions. Say for instance you have a mod where you have a party member who was modded in who was something like John Wick, Indiana Jones, Princess Leia, Luke Skywalker, Macho man Randy Savage, etc. Some of these mods would likely rip audio from other source material or they can be impersonation but you are taking someone’s “likeness” in a similar fashion. Is it just a step too far because we are copying a voice? I’m 100% for modding but we have to be aware it is on pretty shakey ground. Its also hard since some voice actors do have a ton of range and would it really count as “stealing” someone’s likeness if you are copying a voice of a character they have played but you aren’t copying their regular speaking voice
I understand why people fear AI but I just think when its being used by hobbyists its a bit different compared to a company doing it especially when the hobbyist isn’t doing it for commercial gain. Like the recent outrage about a fan animation of scooby doo using AI voices where an actual voice actor sent a hate mob and trying to blacklist the person for daring to have a shoestring budget and make a silly non serious fan episode of scooby doo.
Edit: It seems crazy to see someone dismiss a person’s hard work just because 1 element isn’t up to snuff. I don’t agree with people hating the concept of “AI art” but this person did a full 10 minute 3d rendered retro style felt/puppet animation but the voice acting is the massive hang up and seeing their work dismisses because of it is infuriating.
If they are not making money on the mod, it’s possible you might be able to get away under a fair use argument, especially if the character skills were some sort of parody.
Although that’s definitely not a legal battle I would want against Disney’s lawyers.
I thought this was going to be “they added new lines to the main characters using AI to fake their voices” and that would have been reasonable.
But I see no mention of that. It looks like someone just made a story that you can play in their world and they’re being douchebags again.
I mean even then, its odd but I don’t see a problem if modders aren’t selling the mod as a “expansion” to users. Ai voices are iffy but they can bring so much cool things to the modding scene. The biggest problem is when large corporations like Rockstar/Take two/etc start using them to replace actual voice actors. A modder isn’t going to have the money to pay an A list voice actor to voice act in their mod
Edit: I do think it does cross a bit of a line if said mod is a sex mod but realistically that isn’t a logical difference between that and a normal mod but it does feel like its crossing a line.
I’m in other topics arguing that training on copyrighted content is not infringement in any way, but I think using someone’s likeness is different and probably not legal, because there are separate laws there.
You can usually get away with it if you have deniability, but I don’t think straight up adding lines to characters gives you any way to argue that.
Its iffy isn’t it? Like we have to remember video game mods are a whole can of worms and they are plainly in a gray area for many regions. Say for instance you have a mod where you have a party member who was modded in who was something like John Wick, Indiana Jones, Princess Leia, Luke Skywalker, Macho man Randy Savage, etc. Some of these mods would likely rip audio from other source material or they can be impersonation but you are taking someone’s “likeness” in a similar fashion. Is it just a step too far because we are copying a voice? I’m 100% for modding but we have to be aware it is on pretty shakey ground. Its also hard since some voice actors do have a ton of range and would it really count as “stealing” someone’s likeness if you are copying a voice of a character they have played but you aren’t copying their regular speaking voice
I understand why people fear AI but I just think when its being used by hobbyists its a bit different compared to a company doing it especially when the hobbyist isn’t doing it for commercial gain. Like the recent outrage about a fan animation of scooby doo using AI voices where an actual voice actor sent a hate mob and trying to blacklist the person for daring to have a shoestring budget and make a silly non serious fan episode of scooby doo.
Edit: It seems crazy to see someone dismiss a person’s hard work just because 1 element isn’t up to snuff. I don’t agree with people hating the concept of “AI art” but this person did a full 10 minute 3d rendered retro style felt/puppet animation but the voice acting is the massive hang up and seeing their work dismisses because of it is infuriating.
Yes, those are also illegal. The character belongs to someone. TakeTwo has no rights to tell you not to use Luke Skywalker. Disney does.
If they are not making money on the mod, it’s possible you might be able to get away under a fair use argument, especially if the character skills were some sort of parody.
Although that’s definitely not a legal battle I would want against Disney’s lawyers.