zlacker

>>richar+(OP)
It seems increasingly difficult for common people to protect their voices, especially when even Scarlett Johansson can't manage it. As a part-time voice actor with a unique voice, I'm concerned about what I should do if my voice is used without permission and the company denies it. How can I protect myself in such a situation?

>>Ariel_+4g
What are the unique aspects of a sound? A lot of people look and sound stunningly alike.

As a recent example Baldur’s Gate 3, Andrew Wincott voiced Raphael, an npc-antagonist, who to my untrained ear sounded exactly like Charles Dance, and the character model had more than a passing semblance to Mr. Dance as well.

It was not a Charles Dance carbon copy but all aspects of the character were strongly aligned with him.

I’m wondering where is the line in style and personal aspects of one’s craft drawn.

Some of this is probably part of personal perception.

>>fsloth+jO
Try loading random voice file done by real (voice)actors into Audacity, switch view to spectrogram mode, drag down to expand, and compare it to yours. Professionally done voice should look like neatly arranged salmon slices, yours will look like PCIe eye diagrams.

You can also obviously compare multiple voice files recorded with similar sounding but different individuals, they rarely look similar on spectrograms.

>>numpad+pV
Sure, except literally no one actually does this. You listen to a voice and it sounds similar in your head? That's who you picture when you hear it. Unless you're a robot I guess.

>>gambit+kY
The point is that human voices are technically and verifiably unique, tangential or perhaps antithetical to your/average person's perception.

>>numpad+g11
I don't see how that's relevant here - court cases about situations like these are decided on the criteria of "if you show this to an average person on the street would they be able to tell the difference" not "if you load this up in a specialized piece of software and look at the spectrograph is there a difference".

>>gambit+n31
I think that will be a very clever and useful defense against CCTV footage and DNA analysis reports! Best legal advice ever.

>>numpad+G41
I don't understand why you are being sarcastic right now. Trademark cases are always decided on "if a person was shown this logo/song/whatever could they mistake it for the trademarked property of another company", not "well if you load it up in Paint you can see that some pixels around the edges are different so it's technically not the same logo your honour!".

>>gambit+461
so... your position is now in favor of SJ? I don't see consistency in your comments other than that the aim is to downplay uniqueness of voice to justify OAI's actions after the fact.

>>numpad+H61
No, my position hasn't changed - the average person on the street might think this voice sounds like SJ, but since SJ doesn't own exclusive rights to anyone else in the world sounding like her I don't think she has a legal ground to stand on, unless OpenAI pretended it is actually her. But I know for certain that the case will not be decided on spectographs of the voice.