zlacker

[return to "OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show"]
1. skille+CM[view] [source] 2024-05-23 06:13:55
>>richar+(OP)
The thing that worried me initially was that:

- the original report by Scarlett said she was approached months ago, and then two days prior to launch of GPT-4o she was approached again

Because of the above, my immediate assumption was that OpenAI definitely did her dirty. But this report from WaPo debunks at least some of it, because the records they have seen show that the voice actor was contacted months in advance prior to OpenAI contacting Scarlett for the first time. (also goes to show just how many months in advance OpenAI is working on projects)

However, this does not dispel the fact that OpenAI did contact Scarlett, and Sam Altman did post the tweet saying "her", and the voice has at least "some" resemblance of Scarlett's voice, at least enough to have two different groups saying that it does, and the other saying that it does not.

◧◩
2. serial+KN[view] [source] 2024-05-23 06:21:44
>>skille+CM
I don't know, to me, it's just sounds like they know how to cover all their bases.

To me, it sounds like they had the idea to make their AI sound like "her". For the initial version, they had a voice actor that sounds like the movie, as a proof of concept.

They still liked it, so it was time to contact the real star. In the end, it's not just the voice, it would have been the brand, just imagine the buzz they would have got if Scarlett J was the official voice of the company. She said no, and they were like, "too bad, we already decided how she will sound like, the only difference is whether it will be labelled as SJ or not".

In the end, someone probably felt like it's a bit too dodgy as it resemblance was uncanny, they gave it another go, probably ready to offer more money, she still refused, but in the end, it didn't change a thing.

◧◩◪
3. Action+oK1[view] [source] 2024-05-23 13:55:03
>>serial+KN
This will be used as a template by the entertainment industry to screw over so many people.
◧◩◪◨
4. Uehrek+GN1[view] [source] 2024-05-23 14:09:40
>>Action+oK1
How? This kind of thing is already illegal. If I’m producing a commercial for Joe’s Hot Dogs, and I hire a voice actor who sounds like Morgan Freeman, and he never says “I’m Morgan Freeman” but he’s the main voice in the commercial and the cartoon character he’s voicing looks like Morgan Freeman… well, many consumers will be confused into thinking Morgan Freeman likes Joe’s Hot Dogs, and that’s a violation of Morgan Freeman’s trademark.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. nilamo+0U1[view] [source] 2024-05-23 14:43:17
>>Uehrek+GN1
Which part of that is illegal? Because I don't see anything.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. Shrimp+iX1[view] [source] 2024-05-23 14:59:54
>>nilamo+0U1
It's in the very article > He compared Johansson’s case to one brought by the singer Bette Midler against the Ford Motor Company in the 1980s. Ford asked Midler to use her voice in ads. After she declined, Ford hired an impersonator. The U.S. appellate courts ruled in Midler’s favor, indicating her voice was protected against unauthorized use.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. nilamo+902[view] [source] 2024-05-23 15:15:10
>>Shrimp+iX1
So if I happen to sound like Tom Hanks, anyone recording me in passing would be breaking the law? How does anyone see that as reasonable?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. pnt12+u42[view] [source] 2024-05-23 15:35:02
>>nilamo+902
That's a bit of a strawman: you're twisting the scope and arguing for it.

A more similar context would be: they ask Tom Hanks to create a voice similar to Woody, the cowboy from Toy Story . Tom Hanks says no, Disney says no. Then they ask you to voice their cowboy voice. It's obviously related: they tried the OG, failed, they're going for a copycat after.

But if never approached Tom Hanks or Disney, then there would be room for deniability - without mentions to real names, it would require someone to judge if it's an unauthorized copycat or just a random actor voicing a random cowboy voice.

It was a bad play from their part.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. nilamo+N72[view] [source] 2024-05-23 15:48:43
>>pnt12+u42
You're describing a situation different from the one I replied to, though... >>40454969
[go to top]