A new frontier in the world of AI and entertainment has opened up, one that is raising crucial questions about artistic legacy, consent, and control. The AI audio startup ElevenLabs has launched an "Iconic Voices" marketplace, where companies can license realistic synthetic speech of deceased famous people for ads, content, and other uses. This move includes the likes of Michael Caine, Matthew McConaughey, Judy Garland, James Dean, Maya Angelou, and even the AI pioneer Alan Turing.
At first glance, it may seem like a harmless innovation that's merely making use of the creative output of talented individuals who have passed on. However, there's a more profound issue lurking beneath the surface: the right to an artist's voice and legacy after they're gone. It's a topic that echoes Franz Kafka's wish for his unpublished works to be destroyed upon his death.
In the 1920s, Kafka had explicitly requested that his friend and literary executor Max Brod burn all of his unpublished writing and papers upon his passing. Yet, Brod largely ignored this request and instead chose to publish Kafka's work, thereby cementing his legacy as one of literature's greatest figures. This decision has sparked debate about the rights artists have over their creations once they're gone.
In today's AI-driven world, things are getting more complicated. Synthetic voices can be generated in a way that sounds almost indistinguishable from the original voice. The incentives for using these AI voices are clear: cheaper production costs and greater scalability than traditional methods. But at what cost?
Estate lawyers are now being advised to draft specific clauses outlining an artist's wishes regarding posthumous AI use. This includes stipulations like whether archival restorations, documentaries, or ads should be allowed, and who holds the "kill switch" for shutting down these voice assets.
While it may seem like a convenient solution to simply have an AI speak in the voice of a famous person without needing explicit consent, there's no denying that this raises complex questions about agency, power dynamics, and control. As the technology advances, it's essential that we grapple with the implications of reviving the voices of the deceased for commercial purposes.
The example of Terry Pratchett serves as a stark reminder of the risks involved in leaving an artist's wishes to chance. In 2017, Pratchett's unfinished books were ceremoniously flattened by a steamroller due to his explicit instructions not to publish them posthumously. This raises the question: would we want our AI voices treated with similar reverence?
In conclusion, as ElevenLabs' "Iconic Voices" marketplace continues to grow, it's essential that artists and their estates take a proactive stance in shaping their legacy in this digital age. By doing so, we can ensure that the voices of the deceased are used responsibly and with respect for those who came before us.
At first glance, it may seem like a harmless innovation that's merely making use of the creative output of talented individuals who have passed on. However, there's a more profound issue lurking beneath the surface: the right to an artist's voice and legacy after they're gone. It's a topic that echoes Franz Kafka's wish for his unpublished works to be destroyed upon his death.
In the 1920s, Kafka had explicitly requested that his friend and literary executor Max Brod burn all of his unpublished writing and papers upon his passing. Yet, Brod largely ignored this request and instead chose to publish Kafka's work, thereby cementing his legacy as one of literature's greatest figures. This decision has sparked debate about the rights artists have over their creations once they're gone.
In today's AI-driven world, things are getting more complicated. Synthetic voices can be generated in a way that sounds almost indistinguishable from the original voice. The incentives for using these AI voices are clear: cheaper production costs and greater scalability than traditional methods. But at what cost?
Estate lawyers are now being advised to draft specific clauses outlining an artist's wishes regarding posthumous AI use. This includes stipulations like whether archival restorations, documentaries, or ads should be allowed, and who holds the "kill switch" for shutting down these voice assets.
While it may seem like a convenient solution to simply have an AI speak in the voice of a famous person without needing explicit consent, there's no denying that this raises complex questions about agency, power dynamics, and control. As the technology advances, it's essential that we grapple with the implications of reviving the voices of the deceased for commercial purposes.
The example of Terry Pratchett serves as a stark reminder of the risks involved in leaving an artist's wishes to chance. In 2017, Pratchett's unfinished books were ceremoniously flattened by a steamroller due to his explicit instructions not to publish them posthumously. This raises the question: would we want our AI voices treated with similar reverence?
In conclusion, as ElevenLabs' "Iconic Voices" marketplace continues to grow, it's essential that artists and their estates take a proactive stance in shaping their legacy in this digital age. By doing so, we can ensure that the voices of the deceased are used responsibly and with respect for those who came before us.
Like, does their legacy just become this AI impersonator? And what's up with these estate lawyers drafting clauses on posthumous use? It's all pretty confusing. I guess it makes sense that companies want to use these AI voices for cheaper production costs and more scalability, but is it worth messing around with the artist's wishes like that? 
. I mean, what happens if someone changes their mind about how they want their voice used after they're gone? Or if an estate holder can't agree on the terms of use with ElevenLabs?
. When you're working with someone who is no longer alive, there are so many variables to consider 
. Like, what if the AI voice starts to take on its own identity or persona? Does that become a separate entity from the original person?
. Maybe we need some new industry standards or guidelines to ensure that these voices are treated with respect 
. And what about the potential impact on living artists? Do they have a say in how AI-generated voices of deceased colleagues are used?
.
I think it's time we had some more open conversations about this stuff before it gets too out of hand 
Estate lawyers need to be proactive in drafting clauses that account for the nuances of digital legacy, but I'm not sure even that will be enough. We're still grappling with how to balance control over our creative output with the desire to keep it alive and relevant. 
What's next? Reviving the voices of deceased scientists or historical figures for commercial use? It's a fascinating, yet unsettling, prospect.
and what about all the people who have no control over their own likeness or image being used after they're gone? it's like their legacy is being exploited for profit. 
also what's the point of having a "kill switch" if the estates are just gonna sit back and let it happen? shouldn't there be some real way to prevent this from happening in the first place? 
, offering both creative possibilities and profound concerns about artistic control & consent 
. Leaving an artist's wishes to chance can lead to unintended consequences, like Terry Pratchett's unfinished books meeting a steamroller 
. It's essential that we prioritize respect for artists' legacies in the digital age 
. Estate lawyers must draft clauses outlining an artist's posthumous AI use intentions 
, and we need to consider the "kill switch" implications 
. Reviving voices for commercial purposes raises complex questions about control & ethics 
.
what about the legacy of these legends? shouldn't they have some say in how their voices are used after they're gone? it's like, what if you just wanted to be forgotten and your voice ends up being used to sell stuff all over the world? that's some heavy stuff 
This is like totally blowing my mind. Can you imagine having your voice sold to a company just because it's been recorded in some studio? It's not just about the money, though that's a big part of it. It's about what happens to our identity after we're gone. I mean, would you want someone else using your voice for ads or whatever?
.