zlacker

>>mjcl+(OP)
Most of the reactions here are in unison, so there's little left to contribute in agreement.

I'll ask the devil's advocate / contrarian question: How big a slice of the human voice space does Scarlett lay a claim to?

The evidence would be in her favor in a civil court case. OTOH, a less famous woman's claim that any given synthesized voice sounds like hers would probably fail.

Contrast this with copyrighted fiction. That space is dimensionally much bigger. If you're not deliberately trying to copy some work, it's very unlikely that you'll get in trouble accidentally.

The closest comparison is the Marvin Gaye estate's case. Arguably, the estate laid claim to a large fraction of what is otherwise a dimensionally large space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharrell_Williams_v._Bridgepor...

>>worsts+fc
(Not a lawyer) I think the issue is not just that they sound similar, but that OpenAI sought to profit from that perceived similarity. It’s pretty clear from Sam Altman’s “her” tweet that OpenAI, at least, considers it a fairly narrow slice of the human voice space.

>>jakela+hh
That's true. As I suggested, this case may well be open and shut. But what if it was Google's or Meta's voice that sounded exactly like Sky, i.e. without a history of failed negotiations? The amount of "likeness" would technically be identical.

Are companies better off not even trying to negotiate to begin with?

>>worsts+Xm
It'd be fine to not negotiate if you weren't going to use a voice that sounded famous. If I were offering something that let you make any kind of voice you want, I would definitely not market any voice that sounded familiar in any way. Let the users do that (which would happen almost immediately after launch). I would use a generic employee in the example, or the CEO, or I'd go get the most famous person I could afford that would play ball. I would then make sure the marketing materials showed the person I was cloning and demonstrated just how awesome my tool was at getting a voice match.

What I wouldn't do is use anything that remotely sounds famous. And I would definitely not use someone that said "no thanks" beforehand. And I would under no circumstances send emails or messages suggesting staff create a voice that sounds like someone famous. Then, and only then, would I feel safe in marketing a fake voice.

>>MrMetl+tD
Sounds judicious. You probably wouldn't get sued, and would prevail if sued. However, the question of how much human voice space Scarlett can lay claim to remains unsettled. Your example suggests that it might be quite a bit, if law and precedent causes people to take the CYA route.

Consider the hypothetical: EvilAI, Inc. would secretly like to piggyback on the success of Her. They hire Nancy Schmo for their training samples. Nancy just happens to sound mostly like Scarlett.

No previous negotiations, no evidence of intentions. Just a "coincidental" voice doppelganger.

Does Scarlett own her own voice more than Nancy owns hers?

Put another way: if you happen to look like Elvis, you're not impersonating him unless you also wear a wig and jumpsuit. And the human look-space is arguably much bigger than the voice-space.

>>worsts+OE
I know toying with these edge cases is the “curious” part of HN discussions, but I can’t help but think of this xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1494/

>>jakela+YF
HN discussions, grad school case studies, and Supreme Court cases alike. Bad cases make bad laws, edge cases make extensive appeals.