We have to talk about speaking. Since the birth of sound cinema, producers have had to face the language barrier to exploit their creations on different linguistic markets. Until then, it was enough to translate the intertitles of silent films.
Studios began by shooting some feature films in several languages, but they quickly abandoned this method, which was too expensive. William C. DeMille made eight versions of The Doctor’s Secret with so many teams of actors. Dubbing offered an effective and relatively inexpensive solution by simply allowing the replacement of the original language of filming with another, usually spoken by another actor.
The good business persists, but another technological revolution is brewing and could soon wipe out the use of borrowed voices. The company Flawless, based in London and Los Angeles, created TrueSync software, which reproduces a person’s voice to make them speak another language and modifies the movement of their lips accordingly. The megapolyglot actor is born.
The wonderful tool eliminates the two major defects of traditional dubbing, even the most successful: poor mouth synchronization in the dubbed version and more or less well-tuned voices. Flawless also found a highly technical way (with DeepEditor) to change the dialogue of scenes already shot, again at minimal cost.
The happiness of a few causes the unhappiness of tens of thousands of others. The Quebec dubbing industry obviously panicked. Around 40% of feature films released in theaters in Quebec over the past two decades have been dubbed here in French, including all American films. The national market is much less developed for TV series. Hundreds of actors, technicians and professionals work regularly in the specialized sector and now see their jobs threatened.
“Suddenly, about a year ago, our members in the voice acting industry were the first to warn us that something major was coming with artificial intelligence [IA] “, recalls Tania Kontoyanni, who in April became president of the Artists’ Union, the largest artists’ union in the country. This was the first red flag raised. Since these first alerts, artificial intelligence has made no giant step and concerns are only growing in the ranks of artists.
Made in USA
The sectoral strikes around the major Hollywood studios have partly focused on issues linked to the use of AI. Many professions deemed irreplaceable are, in fact. Conversational bots can write and modify a scenario. Computer programs can resurrect dead actors, rejuvenate the living or even shoot films without them. Even stunt performers find their prowess easily replaced.
It’s not just there, obviously. All artistic and cultural sectors must position themselves and react to the opening of this new world. The tools, growing exponentially, can write articles and books, compose scores or create images, some impressive enough to win competitions against human creators. The new Beatles song released this fall was partly created with the help of AI. Harrison Ford was rejuvenated in the latest film in the series Indiana Jones. In France, in the show Hotel of timeThierry Ardisson conducts new interviews with deceased stars.
The resistance is organized. The UDA was part of the coalition of five professional associations and cultural unions from Quebec which demanded, at the beginning of December in Ottawa, a “protective legislative framework” in the face of the risks posed by AI. Actors, directors, musicians, screenwriters and researchers want to be able to give their consent for the use of their creations, and obtain compensation and credits if applicable.
The battle therefore moves to the legal level. “Copyright should be reserved for human beings,” summarizes Tania Kontoyanni.
Law professor at Laval University Véronique Guèvremont explains that in fact several legal areas are affected by the changes. Copyright is one of them, and she emphasizes that intellectual property law will have to be adapted to protect creators from counterfeiting by machines.
She herself is particularly interested in the promotion and protection of the diversity of cultural expressions around the world. Mme Guèvremont returned from Argentina where she participated in a meeting of UNESCO experts on this subject. Some colleagues also informed her very early on about the impacts of rapidly developing technological changes.
“You have to play chess several moves in advance,” summarizes M.me Guèvremont, who is part of a committee of experts mandated by the Minister of Culture and Communications of Quebec to propose avenues of intervention. She believes that this crucial issue should not be left to the federal government alone, which is developing a bill to regulate AI. Ottawa also adopted legislation to force Web giants to compensate the media for relaying their content.
“Cultural policies are essential,” says the professor. We have put in place a whole system of laws and regulations to ensure access to this content from us, Canadians, Quebecers, in French. An adaptation of these laws is being made, but very slowly. My concern is to see how quickly technologies evolve. Players disappear between the moment we begin to address the subject and the moment we end up with a reform. »
The art of sacrifice
Okay, so let’s return to the question around dubbing. Basically, the new machines allow us to stay as close as possible to the first creator, the original actor, who can perhaps see his own compensation enriched in the event of self-dubbing with his own voice. Basically, in this specific case, is the UDA leading a rearguard battle?
“Immense expertise has been developed in Quebec by professional voice actors,” replies Mme Kontoyanni, adding that Quebec Minister of Culture, Mathieu Lacombe, also asked his union for a complete file on dubbing. This work makes it possible to ensure other cultural activities. […] For the moment, it is the preservation of jobs and rights that are our major concerns. »
Professor Guèvremont, as a lawyer, does not want to comment on the question of the crisis generated by AI in the dubbing industry. “But I think it would be a blind eye to say that it won’t happen,” she said. It is essential to preserve a cultural ecosystem. Sacrifices may be necessary with job losses. But it is absolutely essential, in a democratic society, to preserve a cultural ecosystem, to be able to have artists, creators who express points of view from our perspectives, our values, our history. »