zlacker

>>richar+(OP)
I was perusing some Simpsons clips this afternoon and came across a story to the effect of "So and so didn't want to play himself, so Dan Castellaneta did the voice." It's a good impression and people didn't seem very upset about that. I am not sure how this is different. (Apparently this particular "impression" predates the Her character, so it's even easier to not be mad about. It's just a coincidence. They weren't even trying to sound like her!)

I read a lot of C&D letters from celebrities here and on Reddit, and a lot of them are in the form of "I am important so I am requesting that you do not take advantage of your legal rights." I am not a fan. (If you don't want someone to track how often you fly your private jet, buy a new one for each trip. That is the legal option that is available to you. But I digress...)

>>jrockw+wL
Surely there’s some kind of difference between “voice impression for a two-line cameo in one episode of an animated sitcom” and “reproducing your voice as the primary interface for a machine that could be used by billions of people and is worth hundreds of billions of dollars.”

Is there a name for this AI fallacy? The one where programmers make an inductive leap like, for example, if a human can read one book to learn something, then it’s ok to scan millions of books into a computer system because it’s just another kind of learning.

>>pavlov+fM
If famous actors could sue over the use of a less-famous actor that sounds just like them, what's to stop less-famous actors from suing over the use of a famous actor who sounds just like them in big-budget movies? ... and that's when you discover that "unique voice" is a one-in-a-million thing and thousands of people have the same voice, all asking for their payout.

>>yorwba+6O
> what's to stop less-famous actors from suing over the use of a famous actor who sounds just like them in big-budget movies?

Not having idiots (or ChatGPT) for judges.

>>JumpCr+yP
That's a common retort on HN but it's information free. Judges are at least theoretically and often in practice bound to follow both written law and logic, even if it yields apparently silly outcomes. The prevalence of openly political judgements in the news makes it seem like this isn't the case, but those judgements are newsworthy exactly because they are shocking and outrageous.

If voices being similar to each other is found to be grounds for a successful tort action then it'd establish a legal precedent, and it's very unlikely that precedent would be interpreted as "whoever the judge heard of first wins".

>>mike_h+WW
> it's very unlikely that precedent would be interpreted as "whoever the judge heard of first wins"

No, it's whoever's voice is famous. The voice per se isn't valuable, its fame is. Personality rights are precedented [1].

> voices being similar to each other is found to be grounds for a successful tort action then it'd establish a legal precedent

It's not about similarity. It's about property. Johansson developed her voice into a valuable asset. It's valuable because it's Scarlet Johansson's voice.

Tweeting Her explicitly tied it to Johansson, even if that wasn't the case up to that point.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

>>JumpCr+IY
Yeah, but it's not Scarlett Johansson's voice and therefore not her property. It's one that sounds similar, but is different, and thus belongs to the true voice actress.

>>mike_h+811
> it's not Scarlett Johansson's voice and therefore not her property

It's not her voice. But it may have been intended to sound like her voice. (I believe this less than twenty-four hours ago, but I'm hesitant to grant Altman the benefit of doubt.)

If it were her voice, would you agree that seems distasteful?

> one that sounds similar, but is different, and thus belongs to the true voice actress

They marketed it as her voice when Altman tweeted Her.