Recently, topics related to the well-known game anchor "A Small Group" have been on the hot search again. Compared with her name or appearance, Xiao Tuan Tuan is probably more well-known for her voice, and her Gaode navigation voice package has accompanied many old drivers on their long journeys. Therefore, when Xiaotuan Tuan was reported that she might be suspected of committing a crime, many users "begged" Gaode not to take down her voice pack. Of course, so far it is still unknown why Xiao Tuantuan stopped broadcasting, and her voice navigation can still be used normally, Gaode said that he is currently paying attention to this matter.
With the rapid development of AI technology, speech synthesis has reached the point of "confusing the real with the fake", which poses a new problem to the law. Let's start with the voice package of Xiaotuan Tuan, and talk about a few legal issues related to sound, copyright, and AI synthesis.
Does Xiaotuan have a right to his own voice?
Scientific research has proven that human voiceprints have the same characteristics as fingerprints, palm prints and other physical features, and have the characteristics of uniqueness and stability. Therefore, the human voice should be protected by law, just like other biological characteristics. So does Xiaotuan Tuan have a legal right to his own voice?
We can clearly say that under the current Chinese legal system, there is no statutory right to be heard. But that doesn't mean we don't have a voice over ourselves. The characteristic of sound is inseparable from our existence as human beings, so sound can reflect the personality interests of people, so sound is included in the scope of general personality rights to be protected.
Can the game commentary of the small group be called a work?
This question is a bit more complicated and should be answered on a case-by-case basis.
First of all, as a game streamer, Xiao Tuantuan plays the game while accompanying the screen for real-time commentary during the live broadcast, which may not constitute a work. In the Volcano Xiao** case heard by the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, the court held that although the game anchor added his own commentary and interaction with the barrage on the basis of the game screen, the content added was relatively simple and did not have originality.
Secondly, if the small group selects, edits, and arranges the competitive process of a game, and adds its own commentary for live broadcast, then this contains original content and can be regarded as a derivative work based on the game.
In the above two cases, the live broadcast of Xiaotuantuan is broken down and seen to include multiple elements such as game screens, Xiaotuantuan's sound, and Xiaotuantuan's improvised language creation. If a fan extracts her voice for others to enjoy or even charge, it will not infringe copyright, but it may infringe the personality rights of Xiao Tuan Tuan mentioned in question 1.
Is the navigation voice pack of the small group a work in the legal sense?
To discuss the problem of navigation voice packs, we must first analyze the process of making voice packs.
According to AutoNavi's own introduction, TTS speech synthesis technology was used in the production of voice packets. In the early stage of voice package production, AutoNavi will record some fixed sentence pronunciation of stars in the recording studio, and then AutoNavi will analyze the celebrity's sentence speech, extract their respective vocal rules, voiceprint details, tone and intonation and other characteristics, and carry out speech synthesis through algorithms, so as to fill in the lack of various "variable words" in the navigation voice, so as to form a complete and smooth star voice navigation voice.
Therefore, judging from the results of the voice package synthesized using AI technology, the voice of Xiao Tuan Tuan as a raw material has been formed into a completely new work after an original creative process, which is a work within the meaning of the Copyright Law.
Does the small group have rights to the voice navigation package?
The voice of the small group is the basic material of the voice navigation package, but the subsequent processing, processing and arrangement process are completed by AutoNavi's technicians, so the rights of the navigation package belong to AutoNavi.
Of course, there are all kinds of jokes in the voice package of Xiao Tuantuan, it is not clear whether it was written by Gao De or Xiao Tuan Tuan's own improvisation, if it is the latter, the author believes that if these improvised content are fixed separately, Xiao Tuan Tuan has a basis for claiming rights.
Also, don't forget that in question 1, Xiaotuan has an interest in his own voice, so Xiaotuantuan's consent is the starting point for voice package rights.
Is it infringing to create voice packs with the voice of a small tuantuan?
Whether the voice package of the small group will be taken off the shelves has affected the nerves of many veteran drivers. In case the voice package is really taken off the shelves, without considering whether the technology can be realized, will a netizen's self-made voice package be infringing?
The answer to this question can be found in the previous questions. First of all, you have to get the consent of Xiaotuan Tuan to use its voice as material, and secondly, you must ensure that the process of making the voice pack does not use any content (including technical aspects) of AutoNavi voice pack, which is independently developed by yourself. If you do both, congratulations, you have the voice navigation package to which you are entitled. Of course, this is only a very simple analysis and should not be used as any legal advice for you to develop a voice package.
Voice navigation involves only a small part of the copyright issues of the combination of sound and AI, and this small article is only a superficial statement, and the author will also expand on many of the content in the article in the follow-up.
Finally, I hope that Xiaotuan Tuan is all right, and her voice package can accompany the old drivers to the finish line.
The views in this article are the author's personal opinions, do not constitute formal legal advice, and cannot be used as legal guidance for practice