Daniel Raymond, creator of Ray’s Guide, filed a removal request against Roy’s Guide for using an AI-generated clone of his voice and similar branding, which violated YouTube’s terms and misrepresented him. He emphasizes that his action is about protecting his vocal identity and preventing involuntary association with messages he does not endorse, not about censoring content.
In this video, Daniel Raymond, the voice behind Ray’s Guide, explains why he recently filed an impersonation-based removal request with YouTube against five videos from Roy’s Guide. He clarifies that his action is not about censoring content but about protecting a core part of his identity—his vocal identity. The removal request was submitted because Roy’s Guide was using an AI-generated clone of his voice along with a similar channel name and branding, which violates YouTube’s terms of service. After a two-day window for Roy’s Guide to respond or make changes, the complaint was escalated to YouTube’s legal team, potentially leading to the videos’ removal.
Raymond recounts how this issue began about two years ago when he made a video discussing PvP gamers, using accurate clinical terms from the DSM-5, which Roy’s Guide creators disliked. In response, they published a “griefer’s manifesto” and created a fake channel mimicking his name, logo, and voice using crude AI technology at the time. Back then, he chose not to engage or escalate the matter, hoping they would eventually stop or develop their own identity instead of imitating his. He viewed their behavior as cowardly, as they hid behind an imitation rather than standing up for their views openly.
The turning point came when the AI imitation of his voice in a recent Roy’s Guide video about the Daymar rally became alarmingly realistic and convincing. The improvement wasn’t necessarily due to better algorithms but the vast amount of training data, including all his videos from the past two years, which made the AI-generated voice more accurate. This meant that his voice was being used involuntarily to say things he never endorsed or believed, which crossed a line from silent complicity to forced participation in something harmful.
Another critical factor was the personal vindictiveness in the latest video, which used his cloned voice to deliver insults and negative comments. Scientific research shows that spoken insults leave a stronger emotional impact, especially when associated with the voice of the person insulted. This misuse of his vocal identity not only misrepresented him but also emotionally harmed his reputation, violating the ethical standard that if someone wants to be cruel, they should at least own their words openly.
Daniel Raymond concludes by outlining his simple demands to Roy’s Guide, which included replacing the AI-generated voice with a non-cloned narration and changing the branding to differentiate from his channel. He emphasizes that the content itself was not the issue, only the unauthorized use of his vocal identity. This action is about preserving control over his voice and preventing others from involuntarily associating him with messages he does not support. He ends by encouraging maturity and accountability while expressing hope that others will learn from his experience.