zlacker

[return to "Sam Altman is showing us who he really is"]
1. kaiwen+C5[view] [source] 2024-05-21 22:59:46
>>panark+(OP)
There are many people with voices similar to Scarlett Johansson's. If SJ is unwilling to be a voice actor for OpenAi, then why should OpenAI not find a similar voice and use that instead? SJ certainly does not have a monopoly on all voices similar to hers. Anyone in possession of such a voice has the same right as SJ to monetize it. And someone did in fact exercise that right. If you compare the Sky voice to SJ's, they're not the same.

OpenAI's mistake was caving to SJ. They should have kept Sky and told SJ to get lost. If SJ sued, they could simply prove another voice actor was used and make the legitimate argument that SJ doesn't have a monopoly on voices similar to hers.

◧◩
2. limite+Ja[view] [source] 2024-05-21 23:24:59
>>kaiwen+C5
I encourage you to look through this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
◧◩◪
3. sillys+Bb[view] [source] 2024-05-21 23:30:46
>>limite+Ja
1. The case is from 1988. That’s the year I was born. Societal norms are in a constant state of flux, and this one case from 36 years ago isn’t really an indication of the current state of how case law will play out.

2. Ford explicitly hired an impersonator. OpenAI hired someone that sounded like her, and it’s her natural voice. Should movies be held to the same standard when casting their actors? This is about as absurd as saying that you’re not allowed to hire an actor to play a role.

◧◩◪◨
4. leland+ci[view] [source] 2024-05-22 00:19:12
>>sillys+Bb
Midler is actually quite similar. Midler didn't want to do a commercial, and refused an offer, so they hired a lookalike that fooled her friends. The appellate court held that Ford and its advertising agency had "misappropriated" Midler's voice.

Waits v. Frito Lay, Inc was '92, and cited it. They used a Tom Waits-sounding voice on an original song, and Waits successfully sued:

> Discussing the right of publicity, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict that the defendants had committed the “Midler tort” by misappropriating Tom Waits’ voice for commercial purposes. The Midler tort is a species of violation of the right of publicity that protects against the unauthorized imitation of a celibrity’s voice which is distinctive and widely known, for commercial purposes.

https://tiplj.org/wp-content/uploads/Volumes/v1/v1p109.pdf

Of course, who knows what a court will find at the end of this. There is precedent, however.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. sillys+gm[view] [source] 2024-05-22 00:56:50
>>leland+ci
Thank you. I didn’t know it was similar specifically for voices in commercial use.

That’s annoying, but we live in a country with lots of annoying laws that we nonetheless abide by. In this case I guess OpenAI just didn’t want to risk losing a court battle.

I still think legal = moral is mistaken in general, and from a moral standpoint it’s bogus that OpenAI couldn’t replicate the movie Her. It would’ve been cool. But, people can feel however they want to feel about it, and my personal opinion is worth about two milkshakes. But it’s still strange to me that anyone has a problem with what they did.

[go to top]