• LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    7 months ago

    Yup. People up in arms over this should be reminded that if you want to support SJ here that, in a worst case, you are directly supporting the privatization of vocalization. Like to goof around by talking in Morgan Freeman’s voice? Be prepared to get slapped with a notice to stop. That voice is off limits, and oh also your natural voice sounds like this person.

    Is this silly? Absolutely. But dammit we see what’s happened to Youtube so be aware of the risk.

    • Eccitaze@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      Holy fuck how do you not see the difference between “random nobody does an impression for free while hanging out with their pals” and “multi billion startup backed and funded by one of the richest companies on earth uses an impression as a key selling point for their new flagship product that they are charging access for and intend to profit from”

      • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Obviously there is a difference. However, I am very aware that if something can be monetized, someone will try to monetize and monopolize it. A few years ago, and possibly still today, the word Saga was trademarked. Disney has attempted to trademark common phrases and such in some cultures. Sony has made attempts. I’m certain Apple has tried. The Pokemon Company. Nintendo. A tiny Youtube creator uses their own music and one chord sounds vaguely like some song and they get demolished.

        Don’t think for a second that companies haven’t sat in meetings and gone, “Do we think we can trademark the sound of a voice? Can we OWN that likeness?” These fuckers would privatize air if they thought they could get away with it. Sound pissed all you want, the reality is we’ve very likely dodged this bullet once or twice already, so we should be aware.

        • Eccitaze@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          The problem is that as far as I’m aware there’s literally zero evidence of this doomsday scenario you’re describing ever happening, despite publicity rights being a thing for over 50 years. Companies have zero interest in monetizing publicity rights to this extent because of the near-certain public backlash, and even if they did, courts have zero interest in enforcing publicity rights against random individuals to avoid inviting a flood of frivolous lawsuits. They’re almost exclusively used by individuals to defend against businesses using their likeness without permission.

          • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Okay, fair enough. I did say worst case, though how you explain it makes sense. I don’t trust that they won’t try eventually, you’re probably right that they won’t do so without outcry. I appreciate the down to earth reaction and explanation!

    • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Lemmy seems to love copyright now and walled gardens, they also hate all the companies doing great things with open source ai, etc. Plus there’s never any community projects or anything constructive ever been suggested let alone ran here.

      95% of the people here’s political opinions are nothing but an aesthetic.