zlacker

Let's take a parallel situation from around 20 years ago, and see how you feel about it. I'm going back that far as a reminder of what was long considered OK, before AI.

In the movie The Seed of Chucky, Britney Spears gets killed. You can watch the clip at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3kCg5o0cHA. It is very clearly Britney Spears.

Except Britney Spears was not hired for the role. They hired a Britney Spears impersonator for the scene. They did everything that they could to make it look like Britney, and think it was Britney. But it really wasn't.

Do you think that Britney should have sued the Chucky franchise for that? If so, should Elvis Presly's estate also sue all of the Elvis Presly impersonators out there? Where do you draw the line? And if not, where do you draw the line between what happened in Chucky, and what happened here?

I really don't see a line between now having someone who sounded like the actress, and then tweeting the name of one of her movies, and what happened 20 years ago with Chucky killing someone who looked like Britney, then showing a license plate saying "BRITNEY1", and THEN saying, "Whoops I did it again." (The title of her most famous song at the time.) If anything, the movie was more egregious.

>>btilly+(OP)
I don't think this is an apples-to-apples comparison.

The movie producers didn't produce a simulation of Britney's voice and attempt to sell access to it.

However you feel about an probably-unapproved celebrity cameo in a movie, it's not the same thing as selling the ability to impersonate that celebrity's voice to anyone willing to pay, in perpetuity.

>>btilly+(OP)
This kind of de minimis artistic use is what fair use was invented for, and god knows they licensed her likeness regardless.

>>SrslyJ+r1
If you go to Vegas, you can go to a wedding officiated by someone who looks like, sounds like, and acts like Elvis Presly. This is available to anyone. You can get the same actor to do the same simulation for another purpose if you're willing to pay for it.

The biggest difference that I see is that technology has made the simulation cheaper and easier.

>>btilly+(OP)
> Seed of Chucky, the off-the-wall fifth installment of Don Mancini's Child's Play franchise, was forced to include a special disclaimer about pop superstar Britney Spears

> This scene was included in promotional spots for the film, most specifically Seed of Chucky's trailer, but the distributing company associated with the film, Focus Features, made the decision to significantly cut the scene down and add a disclaimer. The disclaimer that ran with the promotional spot, which was altered to only show a brief glimpse of Ariqat as Spears, stated: "Britney Spears does not appear in this film."

https://screenrant.com/seed-of-chucky-movie-promos-britney-s...

>>btilly+I2
And these people are known as "Elvis Presley impersonators." They don't pretend to be some obscure person you've never heard of, for very obvious reasons.

The biggest difference here is obviously one of scale. I don't think ScarJo would be threatening to sue you, the individual, if you did a voice impression of her for a talent show or a friends wedding.

>>btilly+(OP)
> If so, should Elvis Presly's estate also sue all of the Elvis Presly impersonators out there?

Generally the "Right to Publicity" laws are clear about expiring at death. It's not like copyright.

>>btilly+(OP)
There is a distinction between the image of a celebrity and their voice. The image of a celebrity is usually pretty cut and dried, it’s them, or obviously intended to be them. If the use of their image isn’t meant to be satirical, it’s problematic. The Crispin Glover/Back to the Future 2 case is a good example of non-satirical use that was problematic. Zemeckis used previous footage of Glover, plus used facial molds of Glover to craft prosthetics for another actor.

Voices…are usually not so distinctive. However, certain voices are very distinct—Tom Waits, Miley Cyrus, James Earl Jones, Matt Berry. Those voices are pretty distinctively those people and simulating their voices it would be obvious who you are simulating. Other celebrity voices are much more generic. Scarlett fits into this with a pretty generic female voice with a faint NY/NJ accent.

Open AI screwed up by taking a generic voice and making it specific to the celebrity by reference and by actually pursuing the actor for the use of their voice.