"unauthorized" is a weasel word because it implies that it should be necessary for the developer to ask David Attenborough for authorization to create a clone of his voice using AI.
It raises an interesting discussion about this though, how is this different from someone making an impression of him and doing a comedy show of it for example. They also had to listen to him for hours to reproduce the voice correctly, are they now infringing some copyright when they use this voice?
To me, as long as you clearly state that this is an impersonation/parody, and there is no deception, I do not really see a reason to protect this, even for music. But I'd like to hear arguments for a protection and how it would be enforced, how do you judge of the likeness, how do you know/prove which source material was used for training for example.
Would you be ok if AI was used to impersonate you across the internet? Would you mind if I made a twitter account in your name and phone calls with your voice or upload to Youtube videos of yourself? I wouldn't do anything illegal or to make any money. It would just be entertainment impersonating your likeness and saying whatever I would want you to say.
Is not a weasel word. There is nothing unambiguous about it.
> it implies that it should be necessary for the developer to ask David Attenborough for authorization
Yes. It does. Now you might disagree with that, but it perfectly unambiguously means that.
Have you never heard about unauthorized biographies?
If this could be created without using recordings of his voice to train the model, then sure. I agree a "sound-alike" like that is fair game.
But since actual recordings of his voice were used in order to train the model to recreate the sound, inflection, cadence, etc...it should be required to get authorization to use those recordings for this purpose.
Tell that to all the ppl who contributed to Co-Pilots training set..
That said, I think there's a slight difference in that this is targeting a specific individual.
Going by that logic, can the AI here be considered a "person" performing mimicry after being "inspired" by Attenborough ?
It is not sensible to hand wave the "human like" learning process and ignore economic reality. This area requires careful thought about how our notions of individual rights apply to new technologies, and what kind of economic system can exist as a result.
[1] https://nitter.woodland.cafe/charliebholtz/status/1724815159...