zlacker

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.“

>>MBCook+(OP)
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+e3
> 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+e3
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?