Can Deepfake Technology Have Positive Applications?

  • Thread starter Thread starter anorlunda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Audio
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the unique appeal of David Attenborough's narration in nature films and the potential for using deepfake technology to replicate his voice after his retirement or death. Legal concerns regarding personality rights arise, particularly whether his heirs could take action against unauthorized uses of his voice, as these rights can vary by jurisdiction and may extend posthumously. While deepfakes are often viewed negatively, there is a belief that they could have benign applications, such as preserving the essence of beloved narrators. The conversation also touches on the complexities of personality rights, including exceptions and the implications for non-human media entities like Mickey Mouse. Overall, the potential for deepfake technology raises important questions about creativity, legality, and ethical use in media.
anorlunda
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
11,326
Reaction score
8,750
Last night we watched a nature film narrated by David Attenborough. (who else?)

It occurred to me that no nature film now or in the near future could be a success with any voice other than Mr. Attenborough's. It cries for deepfake Attenborough voices after his retirement or death.

Would his heirs have a legal cause of action? If yes, what is the underlying law?

We think of deepfakes as threats to civilization. Might there be more benign uses of deepfakes?
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt
Physics news on Phys.org
anorlunda said:
We think of deepfakes as threats to civilization. Might there be more benign uses of deepfakes?
Well, technology is rarely bad in and of itself (it could be that the atomic bomb is arguably an exception, although it did lead to peaceful power generation) it's what you DO with it that can be bad, so I'd say yes.
 
I agree! I watched Life on Netflix last week and it would not be the same without his voice.
 
Google is your friend.

It probably comes under "personality rights", that is the right of a person to control the use of ones image or name or anything that might be associated with that person (voice?). Attenborough being a celebrity I would assume has this form of legal protection. The identifiers of a personality are considered property and this right can survive the death of the individual but this protection may vary according to jurisdiction.
 
There are many jurisdictions. Only some of them include voice, and only some of them extend protection after death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

But there must also be exceptions. Otherwise the heirs to Mr. Rogers could sue over the movie, and Richard Jewel could sue over the soon to come movie. Not to mention Elvis impersonators. I think the laws must allow a lot of wiggle room.
 
What about cases of non-human media entities, like Mickey Mouse?
Disney got that locked down I suppose.
 
For people of my generation, the voice of Walter Cronkite would be a winner.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron, jbriggs444 and BillTre
Morgan Freeman is also an excellent narrator, but he is getting older too.
 
  • Like
Likes davenn
possibly interesting,

Three videos with Roger Ebert from about 2011... a pre-cursor to the proposed audio deepfakes:

another video &t=6m10s
another video &t=5m16s

a project I stumbled on:
another &t=1m43s
 
  • Like
Likes anorlunda

Similar threads

Back
Top