Sharing Soda's With Anis! [NIKKE VA Highlights Ep 3: Michelle Marie] 

honestly she's probably one of my favorite part of the EN Dub next to Andersen

to be fair, both grenade launchers and rocket launchers are classified under one class in-game

@@cyscossafehouse352 I guess they did make gyronades after all. ._.

I’m all for Jenny Yokobori. Especially since she voices 2 NIKKE that sounds very different from one another .

what

well my friend, I'm here to tell you that's happening. July 26th

"Bully" is a bit of an overstatement, but bingo

@@D.E.C77 threatening someone, demanding whatever you want to call it

Said youtuber severely overstated this, and contrary to their claims, she probably could have done impressions for them (as in this stream) if they asked her rather than using AI to sample her voice. It'd be one thing if she didn't make herself accessible but she clearly is and she enjoys the community. For a VA their voice is their content that they make a living off of and it didn't feel right that other channel just said "no I'll use your voice anyway" rather than either asking the actual talent first or voluntarily taking it down when asked politely. I explained in the first post why using AI sampling, like ANY OTHER sampling in audio work, requires attribution if used as more than a leitmotif. Sampling is a well known concept in the industry but it has limits; cosmograph absolutely attributed the sample in "The Blacksmith" and that was a much shorter use. It doesn't count as an impression either as it's not an original content. It doesn't imitate, it IS a faithful recreation of her voice and the "content" created with it relied on recreating the vocal likeness rather than altering it or presenting it as an actual parody. Ironically physically clipping voice lines into a dialogue would have been more acceptable. AI digital art can get away with it because it composites numerous works in a way that could be argued to be different from any one part. This didn't do that. It is functionally interchangeable with her work and thus constitutes a form of identity theft, because vocal likeness is in fact a biometric aspect of an individual rather than just a production style. This is the actual reason that other channel eventually complied. A) if it didn't need her vocal likeness then it shouldn't have it if consent was withdrawn B) if the channel is monetized by ads at any point, it stops being fair use and starts getting into trade redress territory like VIP Products v Jack Daniel's C) why on earth would you, after being contacted by the VA WITHOUT legal counsel, not even consider just asking her about helping you herself By doing all of these they basically not only burned any bridge to collabs with any VA but also made statements that could be used against them if any of them actually felt it was used improperly

​@@DD-hz3ts I'm pretty sure it was obvious before that his videos were parody. You can feel some type of way about AI voice, but to call it identity theft is an insane reach. "Just ask" 99.9% of the time the answer will be no(or the actor is next to impossible to get ahold of) since I doubt they are allowed to use the character voice to say crazy stuff on random creators channels without repercussions from the company that owns the character. The channel altered the voice a little so the VA won't send a harassment to their doorstep and risk their channel being massed reported. That was the actual reason. I don't think the channel owner cares too much about burning bridges with Eng VAs and now can't do collabs with them(for how little that's worth) they just want to make fun Nikke videos. Bullying a small channel with realistically little reach cause Anis called an Nikke event terrible is sad.

@@MrToonlink53 parody has a specific, narrowly defined legal definition, because it is an affirmative defense. You can't dodge trade dress claims if you make a "parody" that does everything that a trademark would do except use the actual product/service. A 100% reproduction where the content didn't actually parody the trade dress in question (the vocal likeness) and used said likeness as a focal interest point for the content, was never legally sound to begin with. Altering the samples beyond 15% difference was always the better option and what was always legally and practically preferable. It was never a requirement that the 1:1 AI model be used, nor should it have been. Literally nothing changes by doing so other than avoiding this in the first place. Copyright, patent, and trade dress law consistently maintains that notion. The fact that you and the channel both used "but it's a small channel" as a rationale, implicitly says that you KNOW it's not valid and the only way it could have escaped inquiry was being unknown. Unfortunately, the VA actually looks at this stuff because she spends free time looking at and participating in community content (which is why it wasn't a YT warning but a personal correspondence). This directly contradicts your 99.9% claim, especially because the channel never even tried asking to begin with and defensively grandstanded about it, to the VA, who didn't even leverage any of the several tools available at that point. It was a "hey this makes me uncomfortable can you remove it" request, per that channel's own post, and they responded with "no I don't want to". The rest was a delayed realization that the entire channel was at risk with zero grounds to defend it, at which point they complied with the request anyway. As I said before, vocal likeness has special attributes, because legally this has very fine lines that would get obliterated. For example if a VA has a typecast like tomboy, does it count as a parody to "cast" the AI model in an opposite role like a princess If so then a COMMERCIAL entity can abuse that same protection, because you can make a commercially produced parody that makes money. AI voice has very narrow legal usage because of this. Just because it is widely available technology now, does not mean its implications of use are trivial. For someone supposedly informed on AI, the actual legal boundaries on it should be paramount information. I don't hate AI, I think it can be a great tool, but using it this way, against the explicit consent of the source owner and in confident ignorance of the applicable laws? It's a piss poor demonstration of AI to everyone.