zlacker

>>richar+(OP)
When I first used ChatGPT's voice assistant's I was like "Wow, this one is clearly Scarlett Johansson from Her, they even copy her mannerisms."

No amount of unverifiable "records" (just pieces of paper provided by somebody who has a multimillion dollar incentive to show one outcome) will change my mind.

But if they can produce the actual voice artist I'd be more open-minded.

>>zug_zu+AJ1
This shows how bad it is. If you're proactively sharing a package of docs with the Washingington Post, you're toast.

Altman's outreach, his tweet, and the thousands of tweets and comments talking about how similar Sky is to ScarJo is enough to win the case in California.

>>dbreun+pM1
Then we can add this to the long list of insane lawsuits going the wrong way in California.

They asked SJ, she said no. So they went to a voice actor and used her. Case closed, they didn't use SJ's voice without her permission. That doesn't violate any law to any reasonable person.

>>pc86+sQ1
"Reasonable" is doing a ton of work here.

>>freeja+yS1
"Reasonable" does a lot of work throughout the entire legal system.

If there's one constant that can be relied upon, it's that "things that are reasonable to a lawyer" and "things that are reasonable to a normal human being" are essentially disjoint sets.

>>Turing+C42
>"Reasonable" does a lot of work throughout the entire legal system.

Yet it never becomes anywhere near the significant fulcrum you made it out to be here, filtering between the laws you think are good and the laws you think are bad. Further, you seem to mistake attorneys with legislators. I'd be surprised if a reasonable person thinks it is okay to profit off the likeness of others without their permission. But I guess you don't think that's reasonable. What a valuable conversation we're having.

>>freeja+iE2
No, it has nothing to do with "legislators". The "reasonable man" standard is all over case law, and there are about a bazillion cases where attorneys have argued that their client's behavior was "reasonable", even when it was manifestly not so by the standards of an actual reasonable man.

You can, as they say, look it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

>>Turing+4P2
>No, it has nothing to do with "legislators".

You seem incredibly confused. Legislators pass legislation, not lawyers. So it was never a question as to what lawyers thought reasonable laws are. State representatives determined that it was a good idea to have right of publicity laws and that is why they exist in many large states in the US.

> The "reasonable man" standard is all over case law

Yes, as I already pointed out to you, and another poster did as well, this "reasonable man" standard has nothing to do with your prior use of the word reasonable as an attempt to filter out which laws are the ones you think are okay to enforce.

>You can, as they say, look it up.

You should take your own advice!

>>freeja+CR2
> You seem incredibly confused. Legislators pass legislation, not lawyers.

I'm not "confused" about anything.

Yes, legislators pass laws, but how those laws are actually applied very much depends on the persuasive skills of lawyers.

If your hypothetical where you could use the printed law as passed by legislators essentially as a lookup table, lawyers would serve no purpose.

But somehow people spend tons of money on them nonetheless.

>>Turing+0k3
>I'm not "confused" about anything.

You are very confused. The reasonable person standard has absolutely nothing to do with your initial post where you quoted it.

>If your hypothetical where you could use the printed law as passed by legislators essentially as a lookup table, lawyers would serve no purpose.

What the fuck are you talking about? The stuff I see people here say about the law is INSANE. You don't need a lawyer in the US if you are an individual person, you can represent yourself. What the hell does any of it have to do with a lookup table? I've never seen something so deeply confused and misguided.