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
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...

>>signal+z8
It probably is illegal in CA: https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...

"when voice is sufficient indicia of a celebrity's identity, the right of publicity protects against its imitation for commercial purposes without the celebrity's consent."

>>zone41+Od
But why? Sounds like a violation to the rights of the sound actor

>>charli+gk
Because it's meant to give the _appearance_ or _perception_ that a celebrity is involved. Their actions demonstrate they were both highly interested and had the expectation that the partnership was going to work out, with the express purpose of using the celebrity's identity for their own commercial purposes.

If they had just screened a bunch of voice actors and chosen the same one no one would care (legally or otherwise).

>>whokno+hn
What OpenAI did here is beyond the pale. This is open and shut for me based off of the actions surrounding the voice training.

I think a lot of people are wondering about a situation (which clearly doesn’t apply here) in which someone was falsely accused of impersonation based on an accidental similarity. I have more sympathy for that.

But that’s giving OpenAI far more than just the benefit of the doubt: there is no doubt in this case.

>>janals+iJ
I think "beyond the pale" is a bit hyperbolic. The voice actor has publicity rights, too.