Technology

59251 readers

3613 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

785

Spotify just changed their TOS, giving them unprecedented rights to create "derivative works" from audiobooks (storyfair.net)

submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by gedaliyah@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

88 comments fedilink hide all child comments

They frame it as though it's for user content, more likely it's to train AI, but in fact it gives them the right to do almost anything they want - up to (but not including) stealing the content outright.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Voices can't be protected by copyright but there may be a legal avenue for someone like Morgan Freeman to sue if a voice is clearly a knock off of his voice AND he can make a case for it damaging his "brand".

I'd be impressed though if AI can write a novel without directly referencing a fictional person, place or thing that someone else made up. Stable Diffusion, for example, can make a picture of dog wearing a tracksuit running on the side of a skyscraper made of pudding in the middle of a noodle hurricane. But it didn't invent any of those individual components, it just combined them.

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

This is why we need laws for likeness rights. Every person should own exclusive commercial rights to their own face, voice, etc.

[–] rdyoung@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Now I want that image of the dog framed and hanging in my house.

[–] Plopp@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Jesus, that's dark.

Edit: oh, my eyes skipped the word "image"

[–] Agrivar@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

"Now I want that of the dog framed and hanging in my house."

Are ya sure your brain didn't skip a few more words?

;-P

[–] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz -3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

What about when a talented comedian speaks in the voice of someone else? Should we just write a law that humans are allowed to do it, but machines aren’t?

[–] nintendiator@feddit.cl 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Tell me you don't understand the difference between human creative work and """AI""" work without telling me you don't understand the difference between human creative work and """AI""" work

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

I don't. What exactly is the difference between me making a remix of someone's voice using software I don't understand and me telling software I don't understand to doing that slightly more?

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 months ago

There is no difference. My work involves tools, be they hammers or ML models.

[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 2 points 8 months ago

name, image, and likeness can be trademarked.