I overcame TV addiction some three decades ago but have fallen victim of SmartPhone addiction! Some time ago I watched Elon Musk talk about something or other but something seemed odd, not what I would expect of him. Yesterday I found a similar podcast but with truth detectors on high alert. The cadence was not right. The “speaker” mispronounced St. Peter in a reference to the cathedral. Time to investigate.
The podcasts’ author: Mind To Goals
Mind To Goals
Description
See it. Build it. Live it.
Disclaimer: This is a fan-made channel, and its content is not affiliated with Elon Musk or his companies. The videos are inspired by Elon Musk’s public statements and ideas for educational and motivational purposes only, using a synthesized voice that does not belong to Elon Musk. We use visual lip-syncing and dubbed narration to match the spoken words with on-screen footage, purely to enhance clarity, create a cinematic experience, and make the content more engaging for viewers. Our aim is to amplify the original message by making it easier to understand for the end consumer, helping us reach and educate more people with Elon Musk’s valuable perspectives. We also make the messages of Elon Musk more accessible to people who are deaf or hard of hearing by applying professional transcription to the majority of our videos. We share his visionary ideas in a respectful and inspiring manner, without any intent to mislead.
More info
United States
Joined Jul 31, 2025
308K subscribers
69 videos
15,376,062 views
69 videos in three months, 23 per month
How many of the 308K subscribers know it’s a Spoofed Elon Musk?
Is this audience brainwashing?
Why has Elon Musk not complained?
I hate to limit free speech but is this even legal?
Satire is legal (see SNL). “Use of image” in advertising is not legal, with civil penalties, but there has to be financial damages. How is Musk losing money from these videos? The creator might take them down if asked, and Musk might enjoy the amplification of his voice. Musk might even support this Youtube channel.
I agree that this seems like something that should be illegal, particularly if people are being fooled into thinking it is actually Musk in the video. The opportunity for mischief is too high. Maybe it violates Youtube policy on copyrights? But copyright law is murky, and hasn’t been updated to deal with AI copycats.
Youtube has a Report button, but reporting a copyright violation leads to a webpage that says “If your copyrighted content is on YouTube without your permission, you can submit a copyright removal request, which is a legal process.” Looks like Musk or the copyright holder would need to complain in order to get the video removed.
Bottom line is images on youtube can’t be trusted. Generating AI fakes is too easy and too profitable. We are moving into a world where fake youtube videos are common.
I don’t see a copyright violation. Copyright protects the expression of creative art. I don’t see any of that. What I see is 21st Century snake oil salesmanship.
Years ago I had a spat that led me to investigate “copyright policy.” Yahoo! had a passive policy, they would remove a post only if the owner of the copyright asked. TMF had an aggressive policy, they would remove anything that had a whiff of copyright violation whether anyone complained or not.
Never heard of it.
WHAT IS RIGHT OF PUBLICITY?
The right of publicity is an intellectual property right that protects against the misappropriation of a person’s name, likeness, or other indicia of personal identity—such as nickname, pseudonym, voice, signature, likeness, or photograph—for commercial benefit.
Let’s suppose the author of the podcast does not collect any money from the podcast which would exempt him/her/it from legal action but uTube sells ads published with the piece, is uTube liable under the right?