zlacker

>>mjcl+(OP)
Why do I feel like Sam's 'her' tweet pretty much gave Scarlett Johansson's legal counsel all the ammo they needed lol.

>>alsodu+61
It probably made things worse, but the fact that they reached out to her to use her voice and she explicitly refused would be sufficient ammo I feel. (Not a lawyer of course).

Of course, Twitter continues to bring people with big egos to their own downfall.

>>elevat+p5
Not to mention that it matches up pretty much exactly with the Bette Midler and Tom Waits cases, where courts ruled against companies using soundalikes after the person they really wanted turned them down. Doesn't matter if they hired a soundalike actress rather than clone her voice, it still violates her rights.

>>not2b+G7
I am guessing this is only because they first tried to hire the originals before hiring sound-alikes... otherwise, would it mean that if your voice sounds similar to someone else, you can't do voice work?

>>cortes+9d
> would it mean that if your voice sounds similar to someone else, you can't do voice work?

Maybe only when the director's instructions are "I want you to sound like XYZ".

>>recurs+fe
Exception: Parody is covered under the first amendment.

>>smugma+Ai
>Wheel of Fortune hostess Vanna White had established herself as a TV personality, and consequently appeared as a spokesperson for advertisers. Samsung produced a television commercial advertising its VCRs, showing a robot wearing a dress and with other similarities to White standing beside a Wheel of Fortune game board. Samsung, in their own internal documents, called this the "Vanna White ad". White sued Samsung for violations of California Civil Code section 3344, California common law right of publicity, and the federal Lanham Act. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted summary judgment against White on all counts, and White appealed.

>The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court, finding that White had a cause of action based on the value of her image, and that Samsung had appropriated this image. Samsung's assertion that this was a parody was found to be unavailing, as the intent of the ad was not to make fun of White's characteristics, but to sell VCRs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_v._Samsung_Electronics_A....

Maybe it depends on which court will handle the case, but OpenAI's core intent isn't parody, but rather to use someone's likeness as a way to make money.

(I am not a lawyer)