zlacker

>>mjcl+(OP)
Well, this confirms that OpenAI have been shooting from the hip, not that we needed much confirmation. The fact that they repeatedly tried to hire Johansson, then went ahead and made a soundalike while explicitly describing that they were trying to make it be like her voice in the movie … is pretty bad for them.

>>aaronh+L1
It’s definitely sketchy (classic OpenAI) But my question is: is what they did actually illegal? Can someone copyright their own voice?

>>infota+84
Yes, absolutely illegal. You don't need to copyright anything, you simply own the rights your own likeness -- your visual appearance and your voice.

A company can't take a photo from your Facebook and plaster it across an advertisement for their product without you giving them the rights to do that.

And if you're a known public figure, this includes lookalikes and soundalikes as well. You can't hire a ScarJo impersonator that people will think is ScarJo.

This is clearly a ScarJo soundalike. It doesn't matter whether it's an AI voice or clone or if they hired someone to sound just like her. Because she's a known public figure, that's illegal if she hasn't given them the rights.

(However, if you generate a synthetic voice that just happens to sound exactly like a random Joe Schmo, it's allowed because Joe Schmo isn't a public figure, so there's no value in the association.)

>>crazyg+L6
If they didn’t use her actual voice for the training, didn’t hire voice talent to imitate her, didnt pursue her for a voice contract, didn’t make a reference to the movie in which she voices an AI, I feel OpenAI would have been on more stable legal footing. But they aren’t playing with a strong hand now and folded fast.

>>nickth+D8
Not only that but they didn't credit the voice actress who sounds like her. If she was semi-famous and just naturally sounded like Scarlett Johansson, maybe they could have an argument: "it is not Scarlett, it is the famous [C-list actress] who worked in [production some people may know]".