zlacker

>>panark+(OP)
Altman would have us believe it's all just an innocent misunderstanding but without actually saying so:

"We cast the voice actor behind Sky’s voice before any outreach to Ms. Johansson."

Is he trying to suggest the company did not try to make the voice sound like her without her permission?

The statement sounds like it's written by a lawyer to be technically true while implying something that is actually false.

These are weasel words.

He sounds sneaky, evasive and intentionally deceptive.

We should not give a sneaky, deceptive and manipulative person this much power over our future.

>>panark+m1
There are hundreds of people with similar voices. If any voice actor can pull the same accent than Ms. Johansson, it should be fair game, as long it was the original training material? Voices cannot be copyrighted or be exclusive, although I am sure Hollywood will try to copyright them in some point.

>>miohta+Y1
In back to the future II, Crispin Glover didn’t sign up to be George McFly so they used facial prosthetics and impersonation to continue the George McFly character.

He sued Universal, and reportedly settled for $760,000.

Example article on the topic - https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/bac...

>>LeonB+c5
While not defending OpenAI or Altman, the caveat here is that this was a voice actor using their natural voice, not an actor impersonating scarlett johansson.

Setting a precedent that if your natural voice sounds similar to a more famous actor precludes you from work would be a terrible precedent to set.

>>franka+Q6
I think it would be more like "precludes you from work (arguably) deceptively impersonating the more famous actor."