zlacker

>>panark+(OP)
I don't like @sama just as much as the next person, but come on, in what world is ScarJo's voice unique? There are many people who sound like her. Does she imply that she "owns" this voice so no one else can use it? Excuse me, that's not how it works.

Edit: IMO OpenAI should just make their voice engine open source. Then we'll see if ScarJo or anyone else can stop the open-source community. I expected more from her.

>>behnam+n1
you have to be willfully missing the point when he said Her was his favorite movie, tweeted just “her” when the Sky voice was announced, and when they repeatedly tried to get the voice actor from Her. People who do underhanded things don’t just come out and say “look at me, doing the bad thing!”

>>zemo+T1
Oke and they weren't able to get her and then did a fall back to a different voice actor. How is that problematic? That's like trying to cast a specific actor in a movie, they decline and then you find the next closest match. It's not acceptable that the originally wanted actor then throws a hissy fit. I don't see the reason for outrage here at all.

>>rowanG+C2
The confusion (and that OAI attempted to recruit her) is sufficient grounds for a lawsuit to the effect that they impersonated her. Generally, celebrities have ownership and rights over their likeness for commercial or promotional purposes.

OpenAI tried to benefit by using "her" likeness without permission or a contract/license

>>verdve+R3
So If a director tries to cast Scarlett Johansson and she denies. Then instead casts Amber Heard in the movie. He is opening himself to lawsuits? Because Amber Heard looks very similar to Scarlet Johansson? I can't believe that. What gives Scarlett Johansson the right to block Amber Heard from playing in a movie she was considered for?

I think this is what this argument comes down to but just in terms of voices.