zlacker

> Yes, but it changes the narrative from “they couldn’t get Scarlett to record the voice, so they copied her voice” to something much less malicious.

I don't think it's less malicious if they decided to copy her voice without her consent, but just didn't tell her until the project was underway, then continued even after she said no.

There's legal precedent that hiring a copycat is not OK, so it's not like proving it was a copycat salvages their situation.

I wouldn't be surprised if the real reason they hired a copycat early is because they realized they'd need far more of Johansson's time than she'd be willing to provide, and the plan was typical SV "ask forgiveness not permission, but do it anyway regardless."

>>tivert+(OP)
They used a different person, so it is not her voice.

>>MattGa+H
> They used a different person, so it is not her voice.

That doesn't matter because it's an impersonation. Ford lost, even though they didn't use Bette Midler's voice either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

>>tivert+11
It seems like the key difference is that the advertisements in those cases involved people who sounded like particular musical artists, singing songs that those artists were well-known for singing. If you hired the woman who voiced Sky to say lines that Scarlett had in some of her movies, that would be similar. The fact that this is a chatbot makes it somewhat of an echo of those cases, but it strikes me (a former lawyer) as being a bridge too far. After all, you have to balance Scarlett's rights against the rights of someone who happens to have a voice that sounds like Scarlett's (it would be different if this were someone doing an impersonation of Scarlett, but whose natural voice sounds different).

>>tivert+11
It's not an impersonation it is the actor using their own natural voice.

"We believe that AI voices should not deliberately mimic a celebrity's distinctive voice — Sky's voice is not an imitation of Scarlett Johansson but belongs to a different professional actress using *her own natural speaking voice*"

>>tivert+11
The story addresses this as well.

>>franka+b2
With the law, it is often about intent. If OpenAI had the intent to make a voice that sounded like Scarlett Johansson's in her, then I think that might be problematic for OpenAI. I am not a lawyer though.

>>tivert+11
Ford commissioned a cover of a 1958 song[1] using a singer that would clearly be mistaken for Bette Midler's existing cover of that song, as part of an advertisement campaign where they first tried to get the rights to the original songs.

If you listen to the imitation version linked from that Wikipedia article and the original 1958 you'll hear that they didn't only find a singer that sounded like her, but copied the music and cadence from Bette's version.

I think that's way past what whatever OpenAI did in this case. It would be analogous if they were publishing something that only regurgitated lines Scarlett Johansson is famous for having said in her movies.

But they're not doing that, they just found a person who sounds like Scarlett Johansson.

This would only be analogous to the Ford case if the cover artist in that case was forbidden from releasing any music, including original works, because her singing voice could be confused with Bette Midler's.

Now, would they have done this if Scarlett Johansson wasn't famous? No, but we also wouldn't have had a hundred grunge bands with singers playing up their resemblance to Kurt Cobain if Nirvana had never existed.

So wherever this case lands (likely in a boring private settlement) it's clearly in more of a gray area than the Ford case.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_You_Want_to_Dance

>>gnicho+Z1
Tom Waits sued Frito Lay for using an impersonator to sing about Doritos.