There are uses of AI that are proving to be more than black and white. While voice actors, have protested their performances being fed into AI against their will, we are now seeing an example of this being done, with permission, in a very unique case.
I mean, sure, but that should be negotiated. If they’re using my likeness for free I would not be ok with that. If they’re paying me (or my family) for the use, I would give permission for that.
Right…and they did. Isn’t that one of the main poinst of the article…?
Yes. This time, although it was permission from the family, not the actor. Should that be allowed?
He’s dead, I don’t think he protested too much
his silence is deafening
Is it? Or is it that I have other things to do? 🙄
I haven’t fully formed an opinion on this topic, but to me it seems wrong to use someone’s likeness without their permission. I understand that the family gave permission, which is legally ok, but is it morally ok?
I’m not sure. I think it should be something negotiated before their death.
chill, it’s a joke
Depends on whether a voice is considered a copyrightable asset. If it is it would have transfered to the family when he died so they could give permission. If not CDPR legally wouldn’t be required to get consent anyway. New regulation is probably going to be written to clarify issues like this.
It isn’t, a voice is not an expression and hardly tangible, you can copyright a voice as much as you can copyright a violin, or a style of play: You can’t. But as we’re talking about a person and not an object it is use of someone’s likeness, which is part of personality rights.
Once somebody is dead, their estate because their representative. It’s up to the estate to make the call at that point.