On February 3, Reuters reported that German voice actors have staged a boycott of Netflix productions following the insertion of a clause into new contracts that allows the platform to use their voices for AI training without compensation, says a spokesperson for the German voice actor association Verband Deutscher Sprecher:innen (VDS, EN: Association of German Speakers).
The number of participants in this boycott is unknown, but it was enough to get Netflix to issue a formal response. Furthermore, today, the VDS also published an opinion from a law firm arguing that many provisions in the contract are invalid under German law.
ALSO READ:
AI Manga Creation Tool HANASEE Launches in Closed Beta as TV Asahi-Backed Xross Road Raises $1.5M
Response
VDS chairperson Anna-Sophia Lumpe said in Reuters’ report that following the boycott, Netflix sent a letter to German voice actors, stating that their concerns stem from a misunderstanding. It also invited the VDS to an informal discussion. “They also end the letter with the promise that if people continue to boycott working for them, that content will be shown with German subtitles in Germany,” Lumpe added.
It’s a concerning time for dub actors across the TV, film, gaming, and animation industries, and beyond. Low job security, limited access to roles outside key locations, and the threat of AI, which threatens to replace actors once it gets good enough, hang over everyday actors. Some of these actors have unknowingly, knowingly, and often from a poor power dynamic, signed away AI likenesses and training rights for little to no compensation. The VDS says that Netflix’s new contracts do not specify compensation for AI training.
ALSO READ:
Anime Producer Questions the Humanity of Not Using AI in Anime Production
Netflix’s Controversial Dubbing Contract, Letter to Boycotting Actors, Legalese
Anime Corner has received both the Netflix contract (an Assignment of Rights (AOR) contract) and the letter to the boycotting voice actors from an anonymous source on the condition that they are not named. The contentious contractual clauses appear to be Paragraph 4 and Paragraph 9, where Netflix says:
- Paragraph 4: “Performer hereby authorizes Studio, its successors, assigns or licensees to edit, cut, change, arrange and alter the Results and Proceeds using analogue or digital methods (including using generative or other types of artificial intelligence) for purposes of incorporation into the Version and exploitation as contemplated herein, except as otherwise stipulated in APPENDIX 1 with respect to voice performance Services. Performer acknowledges and accepts that no such editing, cut, change, arrangement or alteration shall constitute an infringement of Performer’s “moral rights” or droit moral in connection with the Results and Proceeds.“
- Paragraph 9: “In order to enable Netflix to work with powerful AI systems, to technically optimize them, to ensure and improve their quality and to continue to use these systems for its purposes, Performer for this purpose grants Studio the consents, insofar as these are necessary for such exploitation or use of the Results and Proceeds. For clarity, the consent requirements described in APPENDIX 1 with respect to voice performance Service (i.e. for Digital Alterations, Digital Replicas, Synthetic Voices) and the application of the relevant statutory provisions remain unaffected.“
“Results and Proceeds” is defined here: “Performer does hereby exclusively assign to Studio, such that Studio shall be the sole and exclusive owner for the maximum period allowable under applicable law,
worldwide, and with the ability to further assign and license to third parties on an exclusive basis, any and all exploitation rights in and to his/her artistic and voice performance in connection with the Services and any and all fixations thereof (altogether, the “Results and Proceeds”).“
APPENDIX 1 limits the AOR’s scope to the voice performances rendered for the relevant Netflix production and says that any exploitation or use of the Results and Proceeds must be carried out in compliance with all relevant laws and regulations. It also gives Netflix the right to use AI to digitally alter the voice performances, “provided that the underlying dialogue of the Results and Proceeds remains substantially as scripted, recorded or performed by Performer, save for changes to dialogue necessary for license or sale to a particular market. Otherwise, Performer’s separate and specific consent will be required for such digital alteration.”
‘Voice Actors Are Signing the Terms of Their Own Replacement Today’: VDS Today on Netflix Dubbing Contracts
In essence, it appears that voice actors are being asked to transfer rights to Netflix, allowing it to use voice performances to train its AI systems for its purposes without compensation. While Netflix says it will ask separately to use AI for digital alterations, digital replicas, and synthetic voices, the contract has numerous areas that may weaken that statement, as well as voice actors’ bargaining power. For example, the “use” of AI in outputs is different from “training” AI on the backend. Improvements to Netflix’s AI dubbing tools may eventually strengthen its negotiating position with actors for future use, past a point of no return.
Netflix also has a explicit carve-out for AI use for making digital alterations to recordings, “provided that the underlying dialogue of the Results and Proceeds remains substantially as scripted, recorded or performed by Performer, save for changes to dialogue necessary for license or sale to a particular market.” What constitutes “changes to dialogue necessary for license or sale to a particular market” is unclear. Furthermore, and more dangerously, what constitutes “substantially as scripted, recorded or performed by Performer” is arguably a vague determination. It may threaten the existence of retakes as a financial benefit to actors, as well as a creative benefit to listeners, since AI is an easy and cost-effective fallback.
Netflix explicitly adds it doesn’t need to ask for permission for “customary post-production alterations, editing, arranging, rearranging, revising or manipulating of recordings for purposes such as (without limitation) noise reduction, timing or speed, continuity, pitch or tone, clarity, adjusting lip and/or other facial or body movement,” where “customary” may be another vague determination. The VDS has also highlighted that Netflix’s new contract makes legal challenges incredibly difficult. In its letter, Netflix says it’s prepared, for now, to drop changes to arbitration.
The threat may be that dubbing sessions will shift towards a “one-and-done” style of recording. As long as actors perform to a certain baseline, AI trained on one’s voice and others will handle the rest, assuming it doesn’t constitute a “substantial” change.
ALSO READ:
Amazon Removes Controversial AI English Dubs for Banana Fish & No Game, No Life Zero
Netflix’s Letter to Voice Actors: ‘These Provisions Should Provide Comfort to You’
In Netflix’s letter to the voice actors, it says that its provisions should provide comfort that it “will not use a digital replica or a synthetic voice generated from your voice without your separate and specific consent. We are not asking by these provisions for blanket consent for those uses, but rather confirming that separate consent will be obtained in the event any of those uses were to be requested.“
But again, none of this appears to prevent Netflix from training its models on actors’ voices, or creating (without yet employing) digital replicas or synthetic voices. This concerns many, given the industry’s rapid adoption of AI dubs. Several major streaming platforms are deploying the technology, including Amazon, which was recently in hot water over its AI anime dubs. Some feel that providing their voices without compensation to train up future competition for dubbing spots may impact power dynamics, affecting wages and rights.
Near the end of Netflix’s letter lies what the platform may see as an inevitability, but what some may see as a threat:
“Netflix remains in open and ongoing dialogue with its partners, and that dialogue will continue as the landscape evolves. At the same time, we want to be transparent: Prolonged delays around signing our AOR, or persistent calls for a boycott, put production timelines and production investments at risk, and we unfortunately could be forced to rely on German subtitles while continuing to offer dubs in other languages.” It adds that this could jeopardize the entire local dubbing industry, leading to job losses and the loss of eligibility for certain remuneration, but “sincerely hope[s]” this is not necessary.
ALSO READ:
Sony Uses Machine Learning in Four Anime to Help Automate Process of Lip-Syncing
Netflix’s Contracts Contain Invalid Clauses Under Copyright Law, Says Legal Opinion From VDS-Commissioned Law Firm
Today, February 9, the VDS published a commissioned legal opinion from the German-based law firm Spirit Legal about Netflix’s AOR, which had been presented to all German-speaking voice actors for signature, the website reads. Spirit Legal has purportedly advised actors against signing the contracts, citing three main issues (summarized): a lack of clear use of AI training data, undermining copyright law; infeasibility of proper opt-outs, violating GDPR; and non-standard business practices that may conflict with existing law. The full response is available from the VDS website.
The VDS concludes, “Netflix and Amazon have filed patents that make human voice actors technically obsolete. The systems generate lip-synced translations from voice recordings and video footage – without a single person standing in front of a microphone. The AOR agreement paves the legal way for this development. The voice actors are signing the terms of their own replacement today.“
Source: Reuters, VDS Website
© Hiromu Arakawa/Fullmetal Alchemist Production Committee, MBS
Participate In Discussions