zlacker

>>richar+(OP)
I never comment on HN I’ve just always been a long time lurker but I feel like I’m going crazy here reading comments.

SJ is not the “AI” portrayed in the movie her. And AFAIK she does not in fact have all the same idiosyncrasies and tones in real life as the voice does in the movie because she was in fact directed to act like that.

Not only that but the voices are not the same because there was another actress for sky as we have seen.

To me It seems as if the case for SJ is DOA unless it comes out somehow that they in fact trained on her voice specifically. But since that doesn’t seem like the case I have no idea how SJ can legally own all voices that sound like hers.

It would obviously be a different story if OpenAI were saying that sky was SJ but that’s not the case. To me the question should be is “can the studio own the character in her that openAI was copying and any similar things”. Which given that systems like SIRI were already out there in the world when the movie came out and we knew this tech was on the way. The answer should be no but IANAL.

I’m not a huge fan of OpenAI anymore and I think they deserve criticism for many things. But this situation isn’t one of them.

Clarification: Of course if it turns out that they in fact trained on SJ or altered the voice to be more like hers then I’d think differently. I still think the studio has more of a claim though look from the outside and not being a lawyer.

Edit: clarification

>>justeo+V01
Well as the article states, there’s legal precedent protecting actors from having their voices “impersonated” by other actors. The fact that Altman tweeted “her” and contacted Johansson can make the case for the intent to impersonate.

>>mondri+b21
What if that's just the VA's natural voice? Must she stop doing VA?

>>Pedro_+P31
She isn't the issue, she isn't being sued.

>>freeja+s52
She absolutely is being deplatformed and her rights are violated.

If every customer who hires her gets sued, that is basically the same as making it illegal for her to be a VA.

>>stale2+Zo2
I don't know what it is about this website that makes discussion of legal issues so frequently poor as it is here right now.

>She absolutely is being deplatformed and her rights are violated.

No. And 'deplatforming' isn't illegal last I checked, whatever you mean it to be.

>If every customer who hires her gets sued, that is basically the same as making it illegal for her to be a VA.

They aren't getting sued because she sounds like ScarJo. In fact, its not clear they are being sued at all. What is illegal, that you do not seem to appreciate, is that regardless of whatever a particular individual looks or sounds like, it does not create a right in others to profit over this similarity in likeness. You cannot hire a Harrison Ford impersonator, to pretend to be Harrison Ford and promote your products. That you re-contextualize this as to Harrison Ford look-alikes being deprived work is just your own sad confusion.