Asteroth releases this mysterious campaign where you play as the Shivans!
BlackWolf also releases the early subspace-faring transport, the GTT Monarch!
BlackWolf releases a trusty warehouse station, GTI Velas!
Working at breakneck speed, MjnMixael released yet another cutscene remade in HD!
Recent Posts
71
FreeSpace Discussion / Re: Can we get someone to just AI Voice Over new missions with Robert Loggia etc...
« Last post by 0rph3u5 on April 03, 2024, 05:31:28 pm »I enjoyed reading this.
To be fair the rest of us sounded like some grumpy elders right there (myself included)
Morally and legally I don't see it as fundamentally different from what we've already been doing.
[...]
I don't see why voice work is meaningfully different. It's not like we're going to pay any of the original VAs to do it if we can't do it with AI, nor pay anyone else. There's no material loss.
I think you are drawing a false equivalency here.
An actor's/talent's voice or likeness are not a comparable piece of intellectual property as they have an existence divorced from the fiction context they are embedded in. An actor/talent continues to be a person even if they stepped out of the recording booth/off the stage/leave the set. And that personhood is inseparably linked to their voice (both in the literal and metaphorical sense) and likeness as identifiable external characteristics.
While we are talking about professional actors/talents there is a case to be made about the commodification of this aspect of their personhood being consensual. However making that argument in full also means to acknowledge that said consent is conditional on remuneration. No payment, no consent, no commodity to be bought or sold.
Additionally, it would negligent not to consider that even with professional actors who take pay-check jobs as their livelihood, the pattern of payment = performance is not that simple.
There a good number of performances that only exist because circumstances align: the right director, the right script, the right moment in time, the right stage in their career etc. etc. pp. As a result some performances would not exist to be used as training data but for a house of cards of circumstance which made the actor/talent consent.
Furthermore, there is another point were your argument is lacking.
Your argument rests on the fact that the activity of this community, creating derivative works by reusing story concepts, 3D models, music etc. has been non-consensual from the start.
But it has not. Take a look at this section of the FS2 EULA (link to the wiki):
Quote
You [the owner of a copy of FS2] are granted a revocable, nonassignable limited license to create derivative works of this Software solely for your own personal noncommercial home entertainment use and may publicly display such derivative works to the extent specifically authorized by Interplay in writing. [Details on how to look up the specifics of that policy at the date of original printing follow]
By owning a copy of the game, each community member that owns the game, has been granted conditional consent to create derivate works and "display" them (i.e. share them). This is further reinforced by the fact that FRED exists in the retail versions of the games and its use is encouraged by providing a tutorial.
Said consent is conditional, but the condition is simply to that no money is being made from the derivative works as commodeties. Which is a condition easy enough to meet if you have desire for it.
