zlacker

>>richar+(OP)
Comments full of people reading the headline and assuming that what OpenAI did here is fine because it's a different actress, but that's not how "Right of publicity" (*) laws work. The article itself explains that there is significant legal risk here:

> Mitch Glazier, the chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, said that Johansson may have a strong case against OpenAI if she brings forth a lawsuit.

> He compared Johansson’s case to one brought by the singer Bette Midler against the Ford Motor Co. in the 1980s. Ford asked Midler to use her voice in ads. After she declined, Ford hired an impersonator. A U.S. appellate court ruled in Midler’s favor, indicating her voice was protected against unauthorized use.

> But Mark Humphrey, a partner and intellectual property lawyer at Mitchell, Silberberg and Knupp, said any potential jury probably would have to assess whether Sky’s voice is identifiable as Johansson.

> Several factors go against OpenAI, he said, namely Altman’s tweet and his outreach to Johansson in September and May. “It just begs the question: It’s like, if you use a different person, there was no intent for it to sound like Scarlett Johansson. Why are you reaching out to her two days before?” he said. “That would have to be explained.”

* A.K.A. "Personality rights": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

>>omnico+v11
You misunderstand how personality rights work.

Called it in the other thread and calling it in this one, there is no wrongdoing on OpenAI's side.

Looking/sounding like somebody else (even if its famous) is not prosecutable. Scarlet Johansson has nothing in this case, whether people like it or not. That's the reality.

>>morale+m41
Who said it was ‘prosecutable’?

>>eynsha+r61
Scarlet Johansson is threatening legal action against OpenAI for this.

Are you not aware of this?

>>morale+Z61
> Scarlet Johansson is threatening legal action against OpenAI for this

Scarlet Johansson cannot prosecute anyone. She can sue them, in civil court, for civil damages. Prosecution is done in connection with crimes. Nobody is alleging any crimes here.

>>JumpCr+Q71
prosecute: to officially accuse someone of committing an illegal act, and to bring a case against that person in a court of law

Source: Cambridge's dictionary (but any other would work as well)

>>morale+I81
> From Cambridge's (or any other) dictionary

Where did you get this? I'm seeing "to officially accuse someone of committing a crime" [1]. Criminality is esssential to the term. (EDIT: Found it. Cambridge Academic Content dictionary. It seems to be a simplified text [2]. I'm surprised they summarised the legal definition that way versus going for the colloquial one.)

You have to go back to the 18th century to find the term used to refer to initiating any legal action [3][4].

[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prosecut...

[2] https://www.cambridge.org/us/cambridgeenglish/catalog/dictio...

[3] https://verejnazaloba.cz/en/more-about-public-prosecution/hi...

[4] https://www.etymonline.com/word/prosecute

>>JumpCr+391
I think it’s still common informal usage to prosecute a (moral) case. Maybe more common in the UK where you can bring a literal private prosecution.

Although I think what lawyers say these days is that it’s not colorable.

>>selimt+ab1
Why would that make it more common in the UK? Being able to bring a private prosecution strengthens the distinction, a regular citizen can both sue someone for a civil offense and prosecute someone for a criminal offense. It makes it more clearly nonsense to refer to suing someone for slandering you as "prosecuting" them because you can bring prosecutions and that is not one!