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
If every customer who hires her gets sued, that is basically the same as making it illegal for her to be a VA.
>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.
Good thing that the actress just used her own natural voice then and wasn't going around repeating lines from a movie or dressed up as the more wealthy celebrity.
I would hope that you don't want to ban all her potential customers from hiring her.
This is absolutely about her rights to sell her own natural voice to potential customers. If it were illegal for her customers to hire her, then this is basically making her job illegal just because someone who happens to have more money and power than her has a similar voice.
It isn't about her, it's about how OpenAI used her voice. I'm not sure why that isn't getting through to you. It was already pointed out that there is no dispute with the voice actress. This is a bizarre conversation!
>I would hope that you don't want to ban all her potential customers from hiring her.
Obtusely repeating yourself doesn't change the law nor does it reflect any effort on your part to actually engage in this conversation and my response.
>This is absolutely about her rights to sell her own natural voice to potential customers. If it were illegal for her customers to hire her, then this is basically making her job illegal just because someone who happens to have more money and power than her has a similar voice.
Using the word absolutely does not make you right.
>If it were illegal for her customers to hire her, then this is basically making her job illegal just because someone who happens to have more money and power than her has a similar voice.
It's not illegal for her customers to hire her. It's illegal for businesses to capitalize on the likeness of individuals without that individuals permission. If OpenAI did not make several allusions to ScarJo and Her, there would be no ground to stand on. But they did!
It absolutely is about her.
If her customers get sued because a more rich and powerful person has a kinda similar voice as hers, then the effect is basically the same as making it not legal for her to work.
Her customers shouldn't be sued because a rich person has a similar voice to hers.
> It's not illegal for her customers to hire her.
Oh great! So you agree that she should be allowed to do this work, and nobody should be sued for it, as long as she isn't going around saying lines from a movie, or dressed up as someone else.
She should be fullyed allowed to sell her services to whatever customer she wants, and those customers shouldn't be targeted, as long as she isn't doing impersonation, which she isn't, as she is simply using her natural voice that happens to sound similar to a rich and powerful person.
No, it's not. She wont get sued.
>If her customers get sued because a more rich and powerful person has a kinda similar voice as hers, then the effect is basically the same as making it not legal for her to work.
They wont get sued because the voice is similar. They will only get sued if her customers represent her voice as ScarJo's.
What is so hard about that for you to understand?