Grimes – 50% royalties on any successful AI generated song that uses my voice(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Grimes – 50% royalties on any successful AI generated song that uses my voice
https://twitter.com/Grimezsz/status/1650304051718791170
9 comments
I'm trying to stay mostly dispassionate about this, to make it easier to be a disinterested bystander.
Having said that, my opinion is that Grimes is making a "genius" move here, in contrast to Drake publicly saying "...last straw AI..." or something similar.
Having said that, my opinion is that Grimes is making a "genius" move here, in contrast to Drake publicly saying "...last straw AI..." or something similar.
What (open) voice cloning models can be used for this use case? I have tried a few, not everyone can do songs, and they are not at the quality level than an be used for song generation.
How can you prove an AI generation is "your voice"?
Artists, Musicians, Celebrities, Actors, Models, and in fact everyone, have a right to their public image: "Right of Publicity"[0]. If an artist using AI uses a relatively poor facsimile of Grimes' voice and avoids claiming it as Grimes' voice, and no one notices that it's Grimes' voice...there's enough plausible deniability that it would be a very difficult case for Grimes to win. However, the moment someone says "I put Grimes' voice on my new track"...they are blatantly infringing on Grimes' Right-of-publicity -- even if the voice isn't actually a copy of hers. Also if the voice is clearly Grimes', it could be found to infringe upon her rights.
In this tweet, Grimes grants everyone a blanket license to use her voice. But not her face, and not her name -- which makes the legal status of labeling the song "...ft. Grimes AI" debatable! To conform to the terms of the license, they just have to give Grimes 50% of the royalties.
Expanding on the "voice but not name" concept, you could imagine a situation where "Deep Voice Guy from the TV Commercials"[1] might want to grant an open license to use his voice, but wouldn't want his real name associated with the myriad works of art that he may or may not approve of personally. So he could grant licenses for using his voice while stipulating that people cannot associate his real name with their art.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#United_Stat...
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcHqvukXlIg&t=77s
In this tweet, Grimes grants everyone a blanket license to use her voice. But not her face, and not her name -- which makes the legal status of labeling the song "...ft. Grimes AI" debatable! To conform to the terms of the license, they just have to give Grimes 50% of the royalties.
Expanding on the "voice but not name" concept, you could imagine a situation where "Deep Voice Guy from the TV Commercials"[1] might want to grant an open license to use his voice, but wouldn't want his real name associated with the myriad works of art that he may or may not approve of personally. So he could grant licenses for using his voice while stipulating that people cannot associate his real name with their art.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#United_Stat...
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcHqvukXlIg&t=77s
She has staked out an attractive negotiating position.
Preach it, sister.