zlacker

I really hope she sues the company to hell and back.

She has the resources to fight back and make an example of them, and they have the resources to make it worthwhile.

>>MBCook+(OP)
Scarlett Johansson made Disney cave. She’s going to absolutely destroy this band of grifters.

>>MBCook+(OP)
I'm not sure she can do much since OpenAI withdrew so quickly. What damages are there?

>>threat+R7
The way USA courts are set up, setting precedent and assessing damages are two distinct things. I agree that the precedent she would be targeting wouldn’t be all that financially rewarding but that’s not the only thing that motivates humans.

>>threat+R7
Sky voice is still there.

>>threat+R7
The demo OpenAI was a massive marketing campaign for GPT-4o and led to the largest increases in revenue for their mobile app. The voice was a large part of why this release was a hit. The demo is still on youtube with 4M views. She has a great case for financial remuneration even if they haven't yet launched the voice feature.

>>threat+R7
Withdrew too quickly?

They didn’t come to an agreement to use her voice, they used her voice. And they obviously knew it was a problem because they went back to her like the night before trying to get her approval again.

The correct thing to do was NOT use her voice.

You don’t get to steal something, get all the benefit from it (the press coverage), and then say “oops never mind it was just a few hours you can’t sue us”.

Why don’t we try selling tickets to watch a Disney movie “just one time” and see how well that goes. I don’t think Disney’s lawyers will look at it and say “oh well they decided not to do it again.“

>>ml-ano+G6
Not only that, I don’t think Disney wants this precedent. They may also want to get back on her good side. Either way given they own a number of movies with her in starring roles I wouldn’t be surprised if they were happy to help in her lawsuit with the legal fees.

Hell they may sue on their own or join as another damaged party.

>>MBCook+Ro
They make no representation that it is her voice, and there's a really good chance that they separately made a voice that sounds similar enough to where if they could tack her name to it, it'd be good for advertising, but otherwise isn't her voice.

Voices are really hard for people to distinguish as being a certain person without priming, so really she's doing for free the advertising they were hoping she'd do for pay

>>8note+5s
> there's a really good chance that they separately made a voice that sounds similar enough to where if they could tack her name to it, it'd be good for advertising, but otherwise isn't her voice.

There’s also a really good chance this is in some way a deepfake. Would be interesting to see this get examined by courts.

>>8note+5s
I don’t know if it’s actually her voice. At this point I wouldn’t put it past them.

But if they concocted a fake voice to sound as much like her as possible, that’s not really better.

Altman’s tweet, combined with previous statements Her is his favorite movie, and trying to secure rights twice looks really really damning.

> so really she's doing for free the advertising they were hoping she'd do for pay

They didn’t want her to advertise for them. They wanted to use her voice. Do you not see a difference?

>>MBCook+Tp
I’m sure they are salivating at the thought of discovery forcing OAI to crack open their datasets so they can put a dollar amount to every piece of infringing material in there.