zlacker

[return to "Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice"]
1. aaronh+L1[view] [source] 2024-05-20 22:38:40
>>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.
◧◩
2. signal+z8[view] [source] 2024-05-20 23:13:32
>>aaronh+L1
OpenAI claimed they hired a different professional actor who performed using her own voice [1].

If so, I suspect they’ll be okay in a court of law — having a voice similar to a celebrity isn’t illegal.

It’ll likely cheese off actors and performers though.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/05/20/openai-sa...

◧◩◪
3. hn_205+V9[view] [source] 2024-05-20 23:22:05
>>signal+z8
Seems like sama may have put a big hole in that argument when he tweeted "her", now it is very easy to say that they knowingly cloned ScarJo's likeness. When will tech leaders learn to stop tweeting.
◧◩◪◨
4. chipwe+ng[view] [source] 2024-05-21 00:01:45
>>hn_205+V9
Or perhaps they cloned a character's likeness?

Is there a distinction?

Are they trying to make it sound like Her, or SJ? Or just trying to go for a similar style? i.e. making artistic choices in designing their product

Note: I've never watched the movie.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. morale+tl[view] [source] 2024-05-21 00:34:10
>>chipwe+ng
I honestly don't think Scarlett (the person, not her "her" character) has anything to favor their case, aside from the public's sympathy.

She may have something only if it turns out that the training set for that voice is composed of some recordings of her (the person, not the movie), which I highly doubt and is, unfortunately, extremely hard to prove. Even that wouldn't be much, though, as it could be ruled a derivative work, or something akin to any celebrity impersonator. Those guys can even advertise themselves using the actual name of the celebrities involved and it's allowed.

Me personally, I hope she takes them to court anyway, as it will be an interesting trial to follow.

An interesting facet is, copyright law goes to the substance of the copyrighted work; in this case, because of the peculiarities of her character in "her", she is pretty much only voice, I wonder if that make things look different to the eyes of a judge.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. pseuda+2D[view] [source] 2024-05-21 03:10:03
>>morale+tl
Likeness rights and copyright are different.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. morale+4E[view] [source] 2024-05-21 03:18:37
>>pseuda+2D
Fictional characters cannot have personality rights, for obvious reasons.

That falls under copyright, trademarks, ...

[go to top]