zlacker

>>mjcl+(OP)
Well, that statement lays out a damning timeline:

- OpenAI approached Scarlett last fall, and she refused.

- Two days before the GPT-4o launch, they contacted her agent and asked that she reconsider. (Two days! This means they already had everything they needed to ship the product with Scarlett’s cloned voice.)

- Not receiving a response, OpenAI demos the product anyway, with Sam tweeting “her” in reference to Scarlett’s film.

- When Scarlett’s counsel asked for an explanation of how the “Sky” voice was created, OpenAI yanked the voice from their product line.

Perhaps Sam’s next tweet should read “red-handed”.

>>anon37+t5
This statement from scarlet really changed my perspective. I use and loved the Sky voice and I did feel it sounded a little like her, but moreover it was the best of their voice offerings. I was mad when they removed it. But now I’m mad it was ever there to begin with. This timeline makes it clear that this wasn’t a coincidence and maybe not even a hiring of an impressionist (which is where things get a little more wishy washy for me).

>>nickth+R7
Why are you mad? We have no rights to the sound of our voice. There is nothing wrong with someone or something else making sounds that sound like us, even if we don’t want it to happen.

No one is harmed.

>>sneak+7r
The law can actually be interesting and nuanced on this: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications...

>>elicas+os
I think it's a different argument with respect to famous media celebrities* too.

If someone clones a random person's voice for commercial purposes, the public likely has no idea who the voice's identity is. Consequently, it's just the acoustic voice.

If someone clones a famous media celebrity's voice, the public has a much greater chance of recognizing the voice and associating it with a specific person.

Which then opens a different question of 'Is the commercial use of the voice appropriating the real person's fame for their own gain?'

Add in the facts that media celebrities' values are partially defined by how people see them, and that they are often paid for their endorsements, and it's a much clearer case that (a) the use potentially influenced the value of their public image & (b) the use was theft, because it was taking something which otherwise would have had value.

Neither consideration exists with 'random person's voice' (with deference to voice actors).

* Defined as 'someone for whom there is an expectation that the general public would recognize their voice or image'