SynthV Synthesizer V Discussion Thread

[lIlI]

It's possible she doesn't keep up with technological developments within vocal synths, and agreed to record on the assumption that the end result would sound like a concatenative Vocaloid. Dr Yun is a poor communicator and rather unprofessional in a lot of his public-facing activities (ST Media has been in a fair amount of hot water with Korean fans over the years for how messily they're run), so I can envision a circumstance where she wasn't properly educated on what Uni would sound like, and didn't realise what the end result was until she stumbled onto it some time after Uni's release.

We do have a precedent for things like this happening, with Kafu also being blindsided by the realism of her SynthV and pulling out after she'd previously agreed to the point of demos going public. It would only have taken her company to not share demos with her, and for her not to have followed the development closely, for the same situation to have occurred.

From the point of view of hardcore fans, it's easy to forget that SynthV's output isn't common knowledge, and that remembering the different synthesis engines and methods is information 99% of people don't have. It's a reasonable possibility that the voice provider genuinely didn't predict, and subsequently isn't comfortable with, a perfect AI recreation of her voice.

I've lost count of the number of casual fans I've seen saying things like 'SynthV isn't AI', 'I thought Yi Xi was a real person!', 'I thought Teto was a Vtuber!', etc. It would only take a voice provider to a) Not realise what they're signing up to uses AI, or b) Not realise a demo sample they were sent was synthesised and not a recording example, to result in consent given under misinformed circumstances.

 

[Alphonse]

It's possible she doesn't keep up with technological developments within vocal synths, and agreed to record on the assumption that the end result would sound like a concatenative Vocaloid.

That's on her for assuming. She could've listened to prerelease demos but instead it sounds like she just ignored everything until weeks after release and then decided to be shocked Pikachu about it.

 

[Leon]

I guess I see the point, but... One ought to look into the company and products that you're signing a contract to do. It really only takes a quick search to see Dreamtonics' page, and one can't say that it's on StMedia for not showing her demos when they released them publically before Uni released

 

[pico]

That's on her for assuming. She could've listened to prerelease demos but instead it sounds like she just ignored everything until weeks after release and then decided to be shocked Pikachu about it.

I guess I see the point, but... One ought to look into the company and products that you're signing a contract to do. It really only takes a quick search to see Dreamtonics' page, and one can't say that it's on StMedia for not showing her demos when they released them publically before Uni released

I cannot wrap my head around this. I simply cannot believe fans of these synths would be so eager to be so completely uncharitable towards the people that make the products they use possible.

This is a matter of opinion, but I believe companies producing AI voice synths have a moral obligation to ensure voice providers are onboard and in-the-loop with the status and condition of the product's development. EVEN IF it isn't an explicit contractual obligation. Yes, in this case, it reflects poorly on the voice provider to sign a contract without thoroughly researching what it actually is that they are doing, but I simply cannot understand the assertion that the developer would have had no responsibility to actually demonstrate the technology to the voice provider. Even if it isn't strictly legally necessary, it certainly reflects extremely poorly on their professionalism in working with their contractors??

All of these assertions predicate themselves on the idea that the voice provider must have known what SynthesizerV was and that she must have had an opportunity to listen to prerelease demos in the first place. Neither of these things are inherent to the situation. The voice provider may not have even been told it was a product specifically for SynthesizerV. She may have signed a contract generally "for the development of an AI synthesizer", which includes within the class of products outputs with far less resolution, such as CeVIO AI and NEUTRINO. Furthermore, it is the developer's responsibility to let the VP listen to prerelease demos. The voice provider cannot be assumed to have access to internal systems? It is wholly within the control of the developer to begin that communication as they are the ones managing the development of the vocal, the inclusion of members of the team on NDAs, etc.

Furthermore, the following excerpt from the article is particularly damning:

[이정은/가수 겸 성우 : (AI) 프로그램 특성상 변형과 왜곡이 있을 거니까 제가 걱정할 만한 일이 없잖아요. 제 목소리랑 똑같지 않으면. (업체) 사정도 있으시고 하셔서 곡당 단가를 제가 원래 받던 것보다 낮게 책정해서 진행했었죠.]

AI가 이씨의 목소리와 창법을 학습한 뒤 가상 캐릭터에 입힐 새 목소리를 만드는 거라고 생각했지만, 결과는 완전히 달랐습니다.

자신의 발성법과 음색, 바이브레이션 등 기술 모두를 그대로 복제하다시피 했기 때문입니다.

실제로 얼마나 똑같은지 들어봤습니다.

The voice provider asserts that she was under the impression that the voice would be derivative of hers but instead it was almost exactly the same. Meaning, perhaps she was aware of SynthesizerV but was introduced under the lens of "character vocals", creating an impression that was distinct from what the vocal ultimately became in reality. She also accepted less than her standard rate per song under the assumption that it would not resolve as a carbon copy of her voice.

In the end, at this moment in time this is they-said she-said, so the reality of the matter will need to come out in court. Perhaps it is true that the VP is completely at fault: the developers warned her it may be extremely similar to her voice, and she knew what was coming. But the opposite could also be true, that the developers failed to cue her in on the work she was doing to an extent that would indicate to her how much her 'self' would be infringed upon by the product. Only the reciepts can say. I am just disappointed with how eager everyone was to throw the voice provider under the bus here. People did the same thing with KAF. I am surprised our community does not have a more humanistic, holistic attitude toward this kind of thing.

 

[morrysillusion]

yeah considering the back and forth he-said-she-said still going on here, its complicated trying to form an opinion that is strongly against one person or the other. at this moment, i feel both are almost equally at fault. i think its odd for someone to agree to something and go through the entire process to where the product is published and just not check in to see what the product sounds like at all until after the fact. but i also think it is more on the company for also... not presenting it to her for proper approval before release??? assuming that really is what happened and no one check on a damn thing before it went out. that alone is such a messy way to deal with producing a product. thats just so odd to me lol...

 

[Alphonse]

The voice provider cannot be assumed to have access to internal systems?

No one said that she would. However, she at the very minimum had access to the same demos before release as the public did. But she waited until way after release to pay them any mind?

 

[pico]

No one said that she would. However, she at the very minimum had access to the same demos before release as the public did. But she waited until way after release to pay them any mind?

This is another baseless assumption. We do not know that she waited until "way after release" to pay attention-- for all we know, the preparation and consultation for this lawsuit began well before the publication of the article. When you are seriously pursuing legal action, much happens in private before a lawsuit is filed and your lawyer indicates to you that it's OK to speak.

EDIT: It appears that the article states the lawsuit began in April. The public demos were published in March. So this actually happened quite quickly.

 

[Leon]

I will happily apologize if I've been harsh -- as I said, we don't know enough yet. But the idea that she'd have signed a contract not specifically for SynthV but for "the development of an AI synthesizer" generally is laughable to me. And the company obviously has responsibility but you also personally have got to look into what you're signing a contract for. The responsibility for this whole mess almost certainly lies with both parties

 

[sunnyp4rk]

I DO respect her feeling uncomfortable with the finished product, but cmon, man... "This product I voiced sounds like my voice" is how the whole "I thought it'd be derivative of my voice" part comes off to me.

I'm also leaning more towards "both groups are in the wrong" until more info comes out. Don't really wanna assume anything malicious on her end.

People being disrespectful towards the VP is absolutely horrible and I don't think people should be doing that? If someone doesn't want their voice being used in a certain way, then we respect that (I do feel empathetic for and understand those who want a refund if the voicebank gets pulled, if it turns out that its unethical to use the vb. Feel like that likely won't happen, though).

Extremely messy situation.

 

[pico]

the idea that she'd have signed a contract not specifically for SynthV but for "the development of an AI synthesizer" generally is laughable to me

The purpose of that statement is to point out that nobody is privy to the contract and the assumptions that are being made about what the voice provider "must have known" are ridiculous. There is nothing laughable about this, we do not know the complete and in-depth history of this product because none of us work at ST Media and similarly, none of us are the voice actress. There is nothing unusual about a company considering multiple platforms or release strategies during the stages of development for a product. There is also nothing that is of legal necessity implying that such a contract MUST have been explicitly labelled "this is for Dreamtonics' Synthesizer V" even if the developers had it in mind from the beginning. This kind of thing is not uncommon in the software industry at all.

Again, it very well could have been-- and as I stated in my initial post, I do concur that individuals should highly scrutinize the contracts they sign, so we are in agreement there-- but yes, I think some people have absolutely jumped the gun here. Even though I have from the beginning conceded that individuals in these situations share responsibility, it is likely in the interest of the wider vocal synth community, who are presumably following vocal synth news like this because they enjoy making art, to at the very least not jump down the throats of the "little guy" in the situation. Because, if what she is saying is true and the courts can do something because things are documented, the results of this ruling will be part of a wide scope of cases that implicates your rights too.

 

[WyndReed]

I have been informed that Genbu can still be purchased from AHS's store.

 

[lIlI]

I'm empathetic towards people who sign contracts without fully understanding them - if you've ever read one, they're very difficult to parse without background knowledge of legal terminology. For this reason, it's extremely common for companies to trick young artists into entering business deals that go against their best interests. The argument 'They should have known better', is one of the most common forms of victim blaming in legal disputes, and doesn't account for how easily people can be manipulated or make mistakes. Even if the affected party was genuinely ignorant and didn't think their decision through, the company is the one in a position of power, and bears responsibility.

This isn't to say ST Media did anything like this knowingly, the simplest reality is that they just did a bad job of explaining. (Dr Yun is a major rambler.) Ultimately, we have no way of knowing who's at fault, so I think it's best not to lay blame. There exist any number of potential hidden factors that could completely change our perspective on the situation.

For example, what if the voice provider had a psychotic break, and hallucinated the whole thing?! What if Dr Yun is a compulsive liar, and has been making up everything on his streams?! These are extreme scenarios, but they are all based on things that have actually happened in previous disputes like this one. We really just don't know until we have all the information! And that may never happen.

 

[Leon]

The purpose of that statement is to point out that nobody is privy to the contract and the assumptions that are being made about what the voice provider "must have known" are ridiculous. There is nothing laughable about this, we do not know the complete and in-depth history of this product because none of us work at ST Media and similarly, none of us are the voice actress.

To be very clear, I was saying that I found your statement laughable, not the situation. In hindsight, a rude choice of words. And if you're correct, about it being common to not state the intended platform in software contracts, perhaps I'm wrong. I find it hard to wrap my head around that being common practice, but hey, I'm not in the industry.

I have been informed that Genbu can still be purchased from AHS's store.

That's good news at least. Still tragic about Eleanor, Aiko, and Renri. How unfortunate. Feels like SynthV got 2 blows in quick succession here

 

[Chuchu]

To be very clear, I was saying that I found your statement laughable, not the situation. In hindsight, a rude choice of words. And if you're correct, about it being common to not state the intended platform in software contracts, perhaps I'm wrong. I find it hard to wrap my head around that being common practice, but hey, I'm not in the industry.

I mean the VP for Yamaha's A.I.Voice talkbank Nancy wasn't told what her samples would be used for and she got upset after she found out a few weeks/months after the release. At the end, Yamaha pulled Nancy (also YV1 and YV2) from the A.I.Voice storefront. There was also Lia who had to retract her statement that IA English would come out for Vocaloid because 1st Place hasn't told her that IA English was actually developed for Cevio CS7