AI voice tech like ElevenLabs is booming, yet the legal framework around whether a voice can be ‘owned’ remains murky, writes film and TV lawyer Julianne Althoff in today’s Notebook
The murkiness of voice ownership
The British-founded AI voice company ElevenLabs recently reached a $22bn valuation, doubling its value since earlier this year. It is now among the world’s most valuable AI businesses, which is a remarkable rise that shows just how quickly speech synthesis has moved from technological curiosity to something approaching the mainstream.
But while the technology may be racing ahead, the law is struggling to keep up and, as companies like ElevenLabs continue to gather momentum, so too does the raft of concerns across the creative industries about what increasingly sophisticated voice cloning means for performers.
Earlier this year, 80 actors, including Nicola Coughlan and Hugh Bonneville, signed an open letter demanding stronger protection against AI voice cloning. Their concern is understandable. An actor’s voice can be hugely valuable. However, at present, UK law offers no standalone statutory right giving someone ownership over it. Performers, instead, are forced to rely on a patchwork of contractual and existing legal protections which can leave them exposed.
Despite these concerns, however, there are a number of areas in which AI can have a positive impact on the industry. Faster and more accurate dubbing could help British films and television programmes reach new audiences, and make them more accessible to their current ones. With the right agreements in place, AI also presents avenues for performers to unlock new revenue streams by allowing them to license their voices across different markets and formats.
This does, however, depend on them being “the right agreements”. Talent contracts are already several steps when it comes to AI, with much closer attention paid to voice cloning, AI training rights and, crucially, payment.
While this is already a divisive issue in the industry, this need not become yet another argument simply about whether AI is good or bad. The genie is already out the bottle when it comes to the technology and, if it can be used responsibly, parts of it may prove genuinely valuable.
The more pressing question is an old-fashioned one. If somebody is making money from your voice, shouldn’t you get a say?
Paramount-Warner Bros: Does bigger mean better?
The Paramount-Warner Bros deal brings a substantial amount of film and TV content under one roof – including big-ticket franchises such as Harry Potter, Friends and The Sopranos. For viewers this could represent far greater convenience – fewer subscriptions and more content in one place. However, there is a catch. Putting more content in fewer hands could ultimately mean less competition in price for consumers and potentially less original content being made. So it remains to be seen whether bigger will genuinely turn out to be better…
Could a BBC-Channel 4 collab work?
Speaking at the Royal Television Society London Convention, Channel 4 chief exec Priya Dogra said she was open to a content-sharing partnership with the BBC. This, a prospect that would once have seemed unusual, is beginning to look rather sensible, though it would not be without its challenges. Individual programme rights may need to be renegotiated. The BBC and Channel 4 also operate under different public-service remits, and have different regulatory obligations. Yet, with UK broadcasters losing ground to the big streaming platforms, greater collaboration could be a positive step towards ensuring distinctive British content remains visible in a crowded marketplace.
The decline of the TV channel
Meanwhile, BBC Three and BBC Scotland could reportedly move online-only or close as the corporation looks to make savings. For BBC Three, taken off television in 2016 only to return six years later, this is familiar territory. This also reflects the changing nature of our viewing habits as an audience. Particularly for younger audiences, the distinction between a “channel” and programmes available via an app is becoming increasingly blurred. Linear TV is still important when it comes to news, sport and rare water-cooler hits, such as The Traitors. However, for much of TV, the programme itself is now the destination and a channel is just one way of getting there.
What I’m watching
I’m currently hooked on two very different series – Slow Horses and Ludwig. Slow Horses is as suspenseful and sharp as ever. Gary Oldman’s Jackson Lamb remains one of my favourite TV characters – a wholly unlikeable and gross human being and yet always somehow the cleverest person in the room. It’s funny and suspenseful, making you long for the next episode immediately.
Ludwig is equally entertaining in a different way. David Mitchell is perfectly cast as a puzzle solver in a good old fashioned “whodunnit” mystery that does not require unnecessary violence but leaves you guessing (and laughing) until the last minute.
Julianne Althoff is a film and TV lawyer at Simkins