Singing Voice Conversion (SVC) uses technology to convert the singing voice of one singer to that of another.
SVC is the latest buzz with tracks like 'Ai Oasis' causing a stir. Tracks like 'Ai Drake' are getting more plays than the real Drake. It begs the question...
'if the Ai version is indistinguishable from, and is as good as the original, why not?
SVC has huge ethical and legal implications that the music industry is frantically playing catch up with.
Legality of Singing voice conversion
The endless Ed Sheeran copyright trials are nothing to the controversy that SVC will generate.
Record companies, with no legal basis, are challenging Ai vocal versions of their singers used to sing on original compositions.
They assume they own the voice of any singer they have signed, despite no contractual clauses allowing this in any record contract their singers have signed. It is simply too new, like digital distribution they may figure it out eventually (steaming solved that).
No doubt new contracts will include some such voice ownership clause but being greedy grabbing assholes, they are trying to apply this retrospectively. The platforms (YouTube etc.) have always conspired for a quiet life and seem to be going along with it, but that doesn't make it right!
Ethics of Singing voice conversion
Can anyone own your voice?
It sounds like enslavement to me but record company recording contracts have always tied artistes to something akin to that, so what's new?
Surely it is a step too far and probably an infringement of your human rights for someone to claim to own your voice.
It's illegal to sell a kidney so, even if a vocalist is willing, surely there must be some legislation to protect the donor?
It sounds like one for constitutional lawyers, not Sony, to decide!