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
> 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.

Yes, but literally no one anywhere is suggesting that the voice actress used would be banned from work because of any similarity between her voice and Johansson's; that’s an irrelevant strawman.

Some people are arguing that there is considerable reason to believe that the totality of the circumstances of OpenAI’s particular use of her voice would make OpenAI liable under existing right of personality precedent, which, again, does not create liability for mere similarity of voice.

>>dragon+fe
>Yes, but literally no one anywhere is suggesting that the voice actress used would be banned from work because of any similarity between her voice and Johansson's; that’s an irrelevant strawman

It's not. The original comment in this chain was drawing parallel to a lawsuit in which someone intentionally took steps to impersonate an actor.

This situation is a voice actor using their "natural voice" as a source of work.

If a lawsuit barring OpenAI from using this voice actor is successful, due to similarities to a more famous actor, that puts this voice actor's future potential at risk for companies actively wanting to avoid potential for litigation.

Suggesting a calming female persona as a real time always present life assistant draws parallel to a movie about a calming female persona that is a real time always present life assistant is not a smoking gun of impropriety.

Pursuing a more famous name to attach to marketing is certainly worth paying a premium over a lesser known voice actor and again is not a smoking gun.

Sky voice has been around for a very long time in the OpenAI app dating back to early 2023. No one was drawing similarities or crying foul and decrying how it "sounds just like Scarlett" ..