zlacker

>>mjcl+(OP)
Why do I feel like Sam's 'her' tweet pretty much gave Scarlett Johansson's legal counsel all the ammo they needed lol.

>>alsodu+61
It probably made things worse, but the fact that they reached out to her to use her voice and she explicitly refused would be sufficient ammo I feel. (Not a lawyer of course).

Of course, Twitter continues to bring people with big egos to their own downfall.

>>elevat+p5
Not to mention that it matches up pretty much exactly with the Bette Midler and Tom Waits cases, where courts ruled against companies using soundalikes after the person they really wanted turned them down. Doesn't matter if they hired a soundalike actress rather than clone her voice, it still violates her rights.

>>not2b+G7
I am guessing this is only because they first tried to hire the originals before hiring sound-alikes... otherwise, would it mean that if your voice sounds similar to someone else, you can't do voice work?

>>cortes+9d
Good voice actors can do a whole range of voices, including imitating many different people. The cases where someone got in trouble are where there's misrepresentation. If it goes to court, there's discovery, and if the OpenAI people gave specific instructions to the voice actor to imitate Scarlett Johansson, after denying it, there could be big trouble. We don't know that, but it looks likely given how they first approached her and how they seemed to be going for something like the "Her" film.