You go to court and see what happens.

That's what happened with Scarlett Johanssen's voice in the OpenAI thing, right? Or at least I think it was a claim at the time.

I imagine it would then depend on the intent and how that voice was presented.

If you got Bob who sounds awfully like Mr Very Famous Guy to record vocal that you then use to train your AI and use that vocal clone to sell your nutritional yeast extract as though it’s Mr Very Famous Guy selling it that would likely be a problem.

If you used the vocal clone to sell it, but said something like “oh hey it’s Bob here lots of people tell me how much I sound like Mr Very Famous Guy but I’m not him” then Mr Famous might have a case for his name being used without permission, but probably not the vocal clone.

But it’s all so new and there’s no precedent.

Given the lawyers are all busy working out whether using copyright protected books and music to train generative AI is legal or not - and have good arguments on both sides - it’s all a bit unclear how stuff like this will work out in the end.

I mean, it’s the same as trademark disputes; legal standards will slowly be cobbled together from statutes, regulations, and random judges setting precedent. “Confusion in the marketplace” seems like a potentially relevant term — accidentally producing a product similar to an existing person’s voice is one thing, but publishing it in a manner and/or context that makes it seem like that person recorded the lines is something else entirely.

Anyway, given how the election is shaking out on Twitter, I have a feeling political usage will spark legislation and precedent far before commercial usage does. But that’s just a plain guess

That it is copied or soundalike does not matter. There are preceding legal cases against using impersonators in commercials that would apply here. It has happened to Tom Waits twice, and both times he sued and won: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6y1kc8Equk

The point is that Geerling is doing Youtube videos in the same field as the products this company is using his voice for. That makes it appear as if Geerling would be endorsing their products. If his voice had been used for, say, a nature documentary then people wouldn't have made the connection that it would have been him.

Then you'd be able to prove that you actually did that, for one.

And the flip side. What if somebody who sounds like the person you trained on accuses you of stealing their voice? Assuming malice from similarity is going to sometimes lead to wrong results.

If your thing got data of somebody who sounds like somebody else but users use not "somebody" but "somebody else" to generate derivatives then you know your answer:)

I actually like this: it might be the first case of a "support the underdog" phenomenon. Suddenly some voice actor who sounds a lot like the already rich popular one, can get a bunch of gigs by barely talking a bit into an AI and selling their likeness. (doesn't really extrapolate into the future properly, but still not many examples of this)

That’s what courts are for, and sounds like you’d have a defensible case.