zlacker

>>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.

>>kaiwen+C5
I encourage you to look through this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

>>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.

>>sillys+Bb
You keep harping about the "forty-year-old law!" (actually only 36), as if that meant it were somehow bad or irrelevant.

So I guess you wouldn't mind if someone killed you, since laws against murder are much older than that? Shit, outmoded old boomer thinking, amirite?

Wow, when you realise how you're coming off here...