Automatically transcribed from the podcast audio, cleaned of detected platform advertisements, and passed through Alie’s quality checks.
Episode Notes
People in the UK could have their voice or face cloned using artificial intelligence without their knowledge and current laws may not be strong enough to stop it, experts have warned. Rapid advances in AI mean realistic digital copies can now be created from short audio or video clips, raising concerns about identity misuse, scams and loss of control. Media lawyer Dr Mathilde Pavis, said UK legislation was now "unfit for purpose" because it was written before this technology existed. "The law comes close, but it doesn't fully protect your voice, your face or your identity," she said.
She added other countries including France, Italy, the Netherlands and Denmark have "effective laws" that protect personality rights. A Bristol voice over artist, Faye Dicker, said she was in "disbelief" after discovering her voice had been cloned, external and sold online without her consent. Dicker said her voice had been downloaded on US based AI firm Fish Audio more than 900 times. She said: "I have no idea who has used my voice, how they have used it and what they have recorded me saying," she said. Fish Audio said it takes "the protection of recognisable public voices seriously" and removed the content.
Reader Version
In this episode of Project Scientist, the host discusses a recent BBC article highlighting concerns about AI technology’s ability to clone voices and faces without individuals’ consent. The rapid advancement of AI now allows realistic digital replicas to be created from brief audio or video clips, raising serious issues around identity misuse, scams, and loss of personal control. The host emphasizes that this is not just a futuristic worry but a current problem, especially as existing UK laws were drafted before such technology existed and are therefore inadequate to fully protect people’s voices, faces, or identities. The episode features insights from media lawyer Dr.
Mathilde Pavis, who describes UK legislation as “unfit for purpose” because it relies on a patchwork of laws, copyright, data protection, and trademarks, that were not designed with AI cloning in mind. While these laws offer some protection for films, recordings, and personal data, they leave gaps when it comes to safeguarding physical likenesses. The host agrees with this assessment and points out that other countries like France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Denmark have more effective personality rights laws. A personal story is shared about Bristol voice over artist Faye Dicker, who discovered her voice had been cloned and sold online without her permission, with over 900 downloads from a US based AI company.
Dicker expressed disbelief and frustration at having no control or knowledge of how her voice was being used. The company involved stated it takes the protection of recognizable voices seriously and removed the unauthorized content. The host sympathizes with Dicker and stresses the importance of consent and fair compensation when someone’s voice or likeness is used commercially. The episode also touches on the broader industry impact, with Trade Union Equity reporting numerous claims from voice artists whose voices were used without permission.
The host highlights the need for stronger legal protections and criticizes the UK government for lagging behind in updating copyright and likeness laws, contrasting this with calls from figures like Baroness Beavan Kidron, who accuses the government of favoring big tech over citizens’ rights. While the host acknowledges the potential positive uses of AI voice cloning, such as preserving the voices of deceased loved ones for family memories, they draw a clear line against unauthorized or manipulative uses, especially those that sexualize or exploit individuals without consent.
The host advocates for fair payment to voice owners, suggesting they should receive the majority of any revenue generated from their likeness. Overall, the episode balances optimism about AI’s creative potential with a strong call for ethical boundaries and legal reforms. The host encourages listeners to stay informed and engaged as society navigates the challenges posed by rapidly evolving AI technologies, emphasizing that while AI is a powerful tool, it must be managed responsibly to protect individual rights and dignity.
Automatic Transcript
New video. Welcome back to Project Scientist. We are going to be talking about how the BBC has released an article about recently talking about how, sorry, AI can now possibly clone your voice. Now, what does that mean? Obviously, the goal is going to be cloned. Who else would have not been cloned? And you know what? Does it really matter in this day and age? Yes, it does. Okay. If someone can clone your voice, it means they can get in through other means of hacking or through illegal ways, and it isn't a good look. So we need more protection for voice cloning and cybersecurity in general.
This is my journey of becoming a scientist, and I'm sure you guys wanted to see how I become a scientist at the end of the journey. Yeah. So let's go ahead and read the article. All right. It says here, warning as AI clones voices and law falls behind. All right. Rapid advances in AI mean realistic digital copies can now be created from short audio or video clips, raising concerns about identity misuse, scams, and loss of control. Media lawyer, Dr. Matilda Pappas, said UK legislation was now, in quotations, unfit for purpose because it was written before this technology existed, just like every other law in the whole goddamn world.
However, every time something new comes out, we actually sit down as a unit, right, unit as in the whole country, and come up with laws that make sense for the next 100 years. And if something changes, we take out something and we alternate it to something else. Sheesh. The law comes close, but it doesn't fully protect your voice, your face, or your identity, she said. She added other countries, including France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Denmark, have effective laws that protect personality rights. A Bristol voiceover artist, Faye Dicker, said she was in disbelief after discovering her voice had been cloned and sold online without her consent. I dare one of you take my voice and clone it.
I know it sounds very good. I know it sounds very professional, but let's just keep it at where it's at, okay? If you make a buck 50, I want 145 out of it. Do you understand? She said, I have no idea who has used my voice, how they have used it, and what they have recorded me saying, she said. Phish Audio said it takes the protection of recognizable public voices seriously and removed the content. Now, it says here, for the laws struggling to keep up. Let's get into this. Dr. Pavis said the UK relies on a patchwork of laws, meaning some here, some there, and then you just put it together, including copyright, data protection, and trademarks to protect someone's likeness.
But she said these, in quotations, come close to protecting your likeness. For example, your face, voice, and body, but were not designed with AI cloning in mind, leaving gaps. Instead, they protect films, they protect recordings, they protect what classes as personal data when it is used in certain contexts. But it doesn't protect your physical and personal likeness, she said. Obviously, when it comes down to things like this, you know, definitely, that's what people are selling. People are selling the person's likeness in order to gain some form of revenue from it. I mean, even if you copy my voice, no one's going to really take my voice unless they really like my voice.
But if they know who I am, and maybe I'm a public figure out there, it's going to have much more of attraction, and people are going to want to take my voice or my likeness and, you know, either have it within their own AI or their own voice modulator or even worse things. Do you know what I'm saying? Trade Union Equity says AI cloning is now a major issue. Representative Shannon Sailing, who looks after voice artists, said the union has submitted claims on behalf of more than 20 members whose voices were allegedly used without permission. It's taken up so much of my time, she added. It's one of the main things I deal with now.
A Fish Olders spokesman said the company's terms of use prohibit users from uploading material and the creation of voice models without the necessary rights and consent. We will continue to work on technical solutions that better support rights, they added. Now, calls for stronger protection. A leading global campaigner for digital regulation is Baroness Beavan Kidron, standing meaning OBE, which is a short version. A crossbench member of the House of Lords. She believes the government is not doing enough to protect creative rights. Kidron said the failure of the current government to strengthen and protect UK copyright and to swiftly give likeness the same status as other forms of protected IP is a disaster.
She also accuses the government of protecting big tech companies over UK citizens. Kidron, a successful film director making movies such as Bridget Jones, The Edge of Reason said, I have been inundated with calls saying US artists are being offered vastly bigger sums than those in the UK for their likeness. The government said it recognizes the digital replicas can be a powerful tool, but it understands AI can be harmful when someone's likeness is replicated without permission. We will launch a consultation to seek views on how we address these harms while protecting legitimate innovation, a spokesperson for the government said. All right.
In terms of protection and so on and so forth, listen, we're going to be lacking behind because there's just so much things out there that keep coming out. Rapidly, and I'm not saying we need something more border in a sense to stop this, because if it wasn't for the roughness of creation, we wouldn't be adapting and making things that are very creative. One thing I do not understand and do not know why people do it. Well, I do know why people do it because it's disgusting is using someone's likeness and not informing them or getting their consent. I've seen or should I say I've read situations of celebrities. OK, what's our main? What's my celebrity?
Because I was going to call my my ass, you know what I'm saying? Where they've taken their likeness in terms of their voice and their body, and they have in terms made it sexual, like they've sexualized that person, whether it's male or female or whatever. And that is just completely wrong. Do you know what I'm saying? Obviously, there's more to it where they're just silly forms of content, disgusting forms of content using people's likeness. And that's just a no, no. We don't agree with those. We take that very seriously. And yes, a harder nail in the coffin should be placed upon those people's heads on those who do such things. In terms of AI cloning, though, I feel like I can see the good part about it.
Let's say, for example, you have a lost one, a loved one who's died and they got kids and you want to show or say something that they said. Maybe they've left a letter and you want to hear it in their voice. That's where I'm like, OK, AI is a good thing because you can clone their voice. Yes, they didn't get their consent, but you're the family member in areas like that. I think cloning voices is perfectly fine. It's perfectly OK. But in terms of manipulating the art, the content, this person's likeness, I do not agree. And that is where I feel as though that should be just stricken as a no go zone. On top of that, if you're going to use someone's voice, pay them, like pay them, bro.
And I ain't talking something little. I'm talking like 80 percent, 85 percent. It's my voice at the end of the day. You know, I mean, it's my likeness that you're using to sell to me, to put money in your account, in your pocket. So why wouldn't you give the person the majority of the ownage of the revenue? Do you know what I mean? I just think in general, we as humans are very creative or very smart. And because of these type of technologies in different areas, whether it's a STEM area or not, we are very, very intuitive to be wanting to express our expression for different forms of entertainment, content and just materials.
So I think it's very important that we keep pushing in terms of making things as a scientist, myself, future scientist and understanding where the boundaries need to be kept and where the boundaries need to just be ticked over. OK, because things like this can go too far. And in general, I do think AI is a good thing, although people are losing their jobs because of it. I just think I just also think that in terms of the AI, we need to understand that we can't just put AI as the forefront of everything.
People made AI, people handle AI, people constructed AI, people keep AI going with the other resources that backs it up, such as electricity and materials that are being mined, you know what I'm saying, and created. So I say all of that to say, yeah, this in terms of the article is a highlight of the situation of voice cloning and is a very, very important article. And I'm here to share that with you guys so that you understand where in general that we should be in terms of AI. In terms of likeness as well, it's been Mr. Project Scientist, where I, your host, I'm attempting to be a scientist of my own caliber. OK, and yeah, I hope you guys enjoy this.
Make sure to follow, turn on notifications and take care of yourselves. I'm out. Peace.
Listen
Open the episode page or follow Project: Scientist on Spotify.