zlacker

I never comment on HN I’ve just always been a long time lurker but I feel like I’m going crazy here reading comments.

SJ is not the “AI” portrayed in the movie her. And AFAIK she does not in fact have all the same idiosyncrasies and tones in real life as the voice does in the movie because she was in fact directed to act like that.

Not only that but the voices are not the same because there was another actress for sky as we have seen.

To me It seems as if the case for SJ is DOA unless it comes out somehow that they in fact trained on her voice specifically. But since that doesn’t seem like the case I have no idea how SJ can legally own all voices that sound like hers.

It would obviously be a different story if OpenAI were saying that sky was SJ but that’s not the case. To me the question should be is “can the studio own the character in her that openAI was copying and any similar things”. Which given that systems like SIRI were already out there in the world when the movie came out and we knew this tech was on the way. The answer should be no but IANAL.

I’m not a huge fan of OpenAI anymore and I think they deserve criticism for many things. But this situation isn’t one of them.

Clarification: Of course if it turns out that they in fact trained on SJ or altered the voice to be more like hers then I’d think differently. I still think the studio has more of a claim though look from the outside and not being a lawyer.

Edit: clarification

>>justeo+(OP)
Exactly. Lots of voices sound like other peoples’ voices. We aren’t that unique.

SJ doesn’t get to own the voice rights to everyone that sounds at all like her just because she is famous.

>>justeo+(OP)
Well as the article states, there’s legal precedent protecting actors from having their voices “impersonated” by other actors. The fact that Altman tweeted “her” and contacted Johansson can make the case for the intent to impersonate.

>>justeo+(OP)
It's not a question of owning all voices that sound like her, it's a question of "are customers deceived into thinking it is her" and "does it affect SJ negatively to be associated with this sound alike" when her income comes partly from her distinctive voice (much like Morgan Freeman). Sam Altman tweeting "Her" right before the announcements is what builds the case for SJ.

Imagine we hired a Leo Messi look alike and made him play football badly or something worse, if viewers can clearly tell it's not him it falls under parody but if we use camera trickery to keep a fooling doubt, we could be in legal trouble.

>>pseudo+31
What about the back and forth trying to hire her, and she refusing?

Sounds like: "Eh nevermind, we are going to use it anyway and BTW, I'm going to tweet 'HER' "

You don't think that will have no weight whatsoever in a lawsuit?

>>pseudo+31
It is not about the voice. Rather using the fame of known actress to boost the product. If your inner motive is to sound like her because she is well-known, differences in voice does not matter much.

>>justeo+(OP)
But is that the point? Here is a relevant precedence, for instance, that may or may not change your mind:

Tom Waits is a singer known for his raspy singing voice. Back in the late 1980s, Frito-Lay, Inc., the makes of Doritos, thought it was a great idea to run an ad in which the music had the atmosphere and feel of a Tom Waits song. Except the professional singer they hired for that got the job done a bit too well: the sounds of his voice in the commercial was so close to Tom Waits' work (he had for ten years sang in a band covering Tom Waits songs) that in November 1988, Waits successfully sued Frito-Lay and the advertising company Tracy-Locke Inc., for voice misappropriation under California law and false endorsement under the Lanham Act [1].

Now, when you hear Tom Waits speak in interviews, I find that his voice does not sound nearly as raspy as in his performances. But the point is that it does not matter so much whether OpenAI used the actual voice of Johansson or hired someone to imitate her performance.

Given the fact that Johansson was initially contacted by OpenAI to provide her voice and declined, we can surely assume that the selection of the particular voice actress they ended up using was no coincidence.

[1] http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications...

>>mondri+g1
What if that's just the VA's natural voice? Must she stop doing VA?

>>pseudo+31
So if I have a company that sells, say, manure, I can search and hire a voice actress that sounds exactly like Scarlett to promote me in radio ads? And write a tweet that vaguely implies that it's really her?

>>Pedro_+U2
No she just has to do so without promoting it as having been done by Scarlett Johansson.

>>justeo+(OP)
> because she was in fact directed to act like that

It's still Scarlet Johansons voice and acting. The same role with the same lines read by different actors would be very different. Imagine for example that they would have cast Tilda Swinton for Samantha. Even with the same script it would probably end up a very different character. Actors aren't interchangeable.

It's very clear that OpenAI was trying to make ChatGPT sound like Samantha from Her. Whether they used Scarlet Johansons voice to train, or excerpts from the movie, or had writers come up with typical responses that sound similar to Samantha are details, and it's up to the lawyers to figure out whether this is legal or not.

But the undisputable fact is that OpenAI took heavy inspiration from a movie, and did so without permission. You could argue that taking inspiration from a popular movie is fair game, but I'm not sure where the line is between "inspiration" and a blatant rip-off.

>>taytus+D1
Not if they didn't actually use it, no.

>>blitza+f3
It wasn't? None of the people I know thought it was Scarlett Johansson.

When Altman tweeted "her" I just thought: "wow, these voices sound really realistic, kinda like the movie"

Is this lawsuit worthy?

>>blitza+f3
Except there wasn't any promotion. The only thing close would be Sams tweet, but this was not an official statement and could easily be explained to refer to the concept of voice assistants in general. The fact that SJ was contacted twice was actually publicized by SJ and not OpenAI.

>>Comple+R3
We would not see these headlines, if they never asked her and never mentioned her. Then it would be just voice of some voice actress which might or might not sound like Scarlett.

>>apetro+33
Yes to the first bit, no to the second.

I don't think a reasonable person would interpret Sam's tweet as claiming that Scarlett recorded the voice.

>>mondri+g1
> Well as the article states, there’s legal precedent protecting actors from having their voices “impersonated” by other actors.

The article doesn't state that. It says that about singers. Very different.

>>column+w1
I think Morgan Freeman is a useful comparison to make. Imitations of his voice have been used in a lot of political campaign videos (not sure how many of them got permission). An imitation of his voice was also used in a UK "morethan" advert where they did seek permission and pay him. Another highly popular AI voice would be David Attenborough, used in any number of videos.

>>Sebb76+s5
> The only thing close would be Sams tweet, but this was not an official statement

How is a tweet from the CEO not an official statement?

>>nicce+d2
The voice was called Sky and OpenAI wasn't using her likeness to promote the voice or product. She isn't that well known, I didn't even know she was in Her.

There's 1 billion English speakers, there are going to be voice overlaps.

>>pseudo+31
Exactly. I barely know who this actress is. To me, it sounds like the tens of thousands of other white american voices. How is the remotely too similar?

>>JChara+5l
The issue is that they contacted her and advertised based on her. They clearly wanted it to sound like her. Now, that it sounded like her, there is a reason to make conclusions about OpenAI's real motives.

>>kleiba+m2
>Given the fact that Johansson was initially contacted by OpenAI to provide her voice and declined

This order is wrong according to the article, the VA was contracted before ever reaching out to SJ.g

Additionally here is a relevant anecdote, for instance, that may or may not change your mind?

>In a statement from the Sky actress provided by her agent, she wrote that at times the backlash “feels personal being that it’s just my natural voice and I’ve never been compared to her by the people who do know me closely.”

It would suck to be blacklisted from your career because your voice may sound too similar to another famous person, if viewed from a certain light.

>>sumedh+Vf
it's the CEO's personal statement.

but yes, even a personal statement may have some value in a case, but you ignored the second part of the GP's criticism.

you're reaching that the tweet of the poster of "Her" meant "hey guys, this is voiced by SJ"

it simply could mean that "hey guys, it sounds as good as the voice assistant from Her"

it is voice assistant software after all...

mind reading a tweet does not make a good case, especially with the timeline noted in TFA.

>>JChara+5l
SCarlett AI. Sky. I know it's a reach but along with the Her tweet, you never know.

>>abhina+oK
Yes, and they released in May 2024 = 05/(2+0+2+4) which is 0.625, which proves it for sure.

Come on, we don’t have to resort to reading entrails.

>>Apollo+AC
Clearly we need mandatory laryngeal surgery for anyone who sounds like anyone else. Also if you look like someone else, well, plastic surgery or an hood for you.

>>nicce+2A
It's such an easy lesson to learn, here: if you are a founder or in any position where your speech relative to a product or service matters, get your ass off Twitter!

>>JChara+5l
> The voice was called Sky

That the voice is called Sky is actually part of what's suspicious about this to me. They had all the world of female names to choose from for the voice that would recreate "Her" (and there's plenty of evidence that suggests that the movie was used as inspiration), and they chose one that started with the same rare consonant cluster as this actress. The only other names that Wikipedia lists with that consonant cluster are Skyler and Scarlett [0]. If they truly were trying to separate themselves from her rather than subtly cue the likeness, why Sky?

> She isn't that well known, I didn't even know she was in Her.

She's the second-highest-grossing actor (and the highest-grossing actress) of all time [1]. You might not know her (and neither do I), but that says more about you and me than it does about her.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Englis...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_act...

>>nicce+2A
How did they advertise this as being SJ? It is worth pointing out that Sky kind of sounded like the voice from Her, not SJ. The voice in Her is a voice SJ did for that movie. It isn’t her normal speaking voice. Does she get to own the likeness of every kind of voice she’s made, or could make?

>>JChara+5l
"She isn't that well known"

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Culture/scarlett-johansson-tops-l...

>>newacc+M3
in fact, the movie was originally recorded with Samantha Morton doing the voice of the AI, but she was replaced with Johansson last minute!

>>sebzim+8a
There's legal precedent against the first one. Tom Waits successfully sued Frito Lay after they used a Tom Waits soundalike in a commercial.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-09-me-238-st...

>>lolind+wR
> and they chose one that started with the same rare consonant cluster as this actress

Okay so we can't use voices that are similar to actress voices, and we can't use names that starts with the same "rare consonant cluster" as actress names.

This is getting ridiculous

>>pseudo+FR
> How did they advertise this as being SJ?

Altman tweeted a reference to Her. (Literally just that text.)

>>theult+IH
> it's the CEO's personal statement

Wat.

> mind reading a tweet

He says the name of the movie! We don’t need to know his state of mind, just the promotional effect.

>>johtso+Da
Random TikTokers will use AI that sounds like a celebrity, and they get away with it. There are many reasons why it's not a big fuss. They're not really selling a product directly, so it could be considered a fair use, unlike ChatGPT which is a paid product (they're literally selling the voice as a feature). There is also the intent; a Morgan Freeman AI voice on a random TikTok video is obvious to a reasonable person to not actually be his real voice, so you can't really make any sort of claim that they're masquerading him as actually saying whatever the script is. It's just for fun. And finally you can't really sue thousands and thousands of TikTokers.

>>goatki+EU
> Okay so we can't use voices that are similar to actress voices, and we can't use names that starts with the same "rare consonant cluster" as actress names.

No, we just can't advertise or get other clear benefits based on the fame of something well-known without considering these entities.

It is about the overall picture, and in this case there is very high relation to the movie and Scarlett.

>>Pedro_+U2
She isn't the issue, she isn't being sued.

>>haiku2+bT
if i recall that only won because they contacted Tom first and he said no, which isn't what happened with OAI/SJ

>>JChara+5l
Not that well known? She's one of the most famous actresses in the world! Seriously, go look at her Wikipedia page.

>>freeja+x41
She absolutely is being deplatformed and her rights are violated.

If every customer who hires her gets sued, that is basically the same as making it illegal for her to be a VA.

>>JumpCr+GV
And he could have meant a whole lot of different things by that, including the perfectly reasonable observation that the voice assistant tech is at parity with what we saw in _Her_.

The assertion that this one tweet, in the absence of any other official communication, constitutes advertising the product to be voiced by Scarlett Johansson is a _huge_ stretch.

I'm certain OpenAI would have been much happier with SJ as the voice actress. But how different does a female voice have to be to _not_ be considered an impersonation of someone?

>>JumpCr+GV
How does that only refer to the voice? And how is that advertising, or using SJ's likeness or image?

I think the fact that the AI in the OpenAI demos acts like it is at a similar level to Her is far more impressive than the voice may sound like the one SJ did for that movie. Impressively mimicked voices aren't that new. Amazon sold a Samuel L Jackson Alexa voice years ago.

>>nicce+aY
Tweeting a single word, a pronoun no less, is a "very high relation". And that is a legal bar?

Most people have never heard of Her. It wasn't a very big movie, especially outside tech circles. Most of my friends who aren't in tech would have no clue that Altman was referring to an AI in a movie.

>>stale2+4o1
I don't know what it is about this website that makes discussion of legal issues so frequently poor as it is here right now.

>She absolutely is being deplatformed and her rights are violated.

No. And 'deplatforming' isn't illegal last I checked, whatever you mean it to be.

>If every customer who hires her gets sued, that is basically the same as making it illegal for her to be a VA.

They aren't getting sued because she sounds like ScarJo. In fact, its not clear they are being sued at all. What is illegal, that you do not seem to appreciate, is that regardless of whatever a particular individual looks or sounds like, it does not create a right in others to profit over this similarity in likeness. You cannot hire a Harrison Ford impersonator, to pretend to be Harrison Ford and promote your products. That you re-contextualize this as to Harrison Ford look-alikes being deprived work is just your own sad confusion.

>>Apollo+AC
> This order is wrong according to the article, the VA was contracted before ever reaching out to SJ.g

Be that as it may, but it's clear that OpenAI had early on considered a her-like voice for their product. According to OpenAI, they started with over 400 candidate voices and narrowed them down to [1]. I find it would be quite the amazing if the one that sounded very close to the her voice was chosen purely by coincidence - and then they went:

- Wait a minute, you know what she sounds like? Have you ever seen that movie Her?

- Man, you're right, it does sound quite like that voice. Wasn't that Scarlett Johansson in the movie?

- Yeah, I think so.

- Whoa, whoa, tell you what: why don't we hire Scarlett Johansson directly?

- After we just went through 400 voices to select these five?

- So what? She's a star! Think of the marketing impact! "OpenAI has developed real-life her"

- Cool, dude! But what are the odds that Johansson would do that?

- I guess there's only one way to find out...

> Yeah, man, you're right. Let's do it!

I wonder if that was how it happened...

> It would suck to be blacklisted from your career

That's true. Is that's what's happening?

[1] https://openai.com/index/how-the-voices-for-chatgpt-were-cho...

>>pseudo+sB1
Agreed, if you take each piece of the puzzle in isolation it sounds silly and totally not worth Johansson's time. But that's how most legal cases are: there's no one single piece of evidence that is conclusive proof in and of itself, there is a collection of facts that together form a reasonable basis for concluding a level of intent that meets the burden of proof.

I'm not convinced that the pieces all add up to a slam dunk, but you can't dismiss them one by one, you have to look at the whole.

>>freeja+jE1
> You cannot hire a Harrison Ford impersonator

Good thing that the actress just used her own natural voice then and wasn't going around repeating lines from a movie or dressed up as the more wealthy celebrity.

I would hope that you don't want to ban all her potential customers from hiring her.

This is absolutely about her rights to sell her own natural voice to potential customers. If it were illegal for her customers to hire her, then this is basically making her job illegal just because someone who happens to have more money and power than her has a similar voice.

>>stale2+7L1
>Good thing that the actress just used her own natural voice then and wasn't going around repeating lines from a movie or dressed up as the more wealthy celebrity.

It isn't about her, it's about how OpenAI used her voice. I'm not sure why that isn't getting through to you. It was already pointed out that there is no dispute with the voice actress. This is a bizarre conversation!

>I would hope that you don't want to ban all her potential customers from hiring her.

Obtusely repeating yourself doesn't change the law nor does it reflect any effort on your part to actually engage in this conversation and my response.

>This is absolutely about her rights to sell her own natural voice to potential customers. If it were illegal for her customers to hire her, then this is basically making her job illegal just because someone who happens to have more money and power than her has a similar voice.

Using the word absolutely does not make you right.

>If it were illegal for her customers to hire her, then this is basically making her job illegal just because someone who happens to have more money and power than her has a similar voice.

It's not illegal for her customers to hire her. It's illegal for businesses to capitalize on the likeness of individuals without that individuals permission. If OpenAI did not make several allusions to ScarJo and Her, there would be no ground to stand on. But they did!

>>jes519+vS
Really? Are there any leaks of the original version? I would love to see the difference.

>>freeja+hQ1
> It isn't about her, it's about how OpenAI used her voice.

It absolutely is about her.

If her customers get sued because a more rich and powerful person has a kinda similar voice as hers, then the effect is basically the same as making it not legal for her to work.

Her customers shouldn't be sued because a rich person has a similar voice to hers.

> It's not illegal for her customers to hire her.

Oh great! So you agree that she should be allowed to do this work, and nobody should be sued for it, as long as she isn't going around saying lines from a movie, or dressed up as someone else.

She should be fullyed allowed to sell her services to whatever customer she wants, and those customers shouldn't be targeted, as long as she isn't doing impersonation, which she isn't, as she is simply using her natural voice that happens to sound similar to a rich and powerful person.

>>stale2+vX1
>It absolutely is about her.

No, it's not. She wont get sued.

>If her customers get sued because a more rich and powerful person has a kinda similar voice as hers, then the effect is basically the same as making it not legal for her to work.

They wont get sued because the voice is similar. They will only get sued if her customers represent her voice as ScarJo's.

What is so hard about that for you to understand?

>>freeja+9Z1
> They will only get sued if her customers represent her voice as ScarJo's.

Horray! You agree with me that everyone in the situation is completely in the clear because she isn't saying that her voice is that, and she isn't going around repeating movie lines, or dressing up as her.

Also, here is an opinion from some who actually seems to know what they are talking about, and has legal experience:

>>40451286

"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"

They straight up said this. So yes, according to someone who actually has legal experience, it is about her rights. Even if someone isn't directly being sued, according to them, who used to be a lawyer, this matters. And you, the not lawyer are not in agreement with an actual expert on the matter.

But whatever. I am more than happy to come back to you and your comments later, when either a lawsuit doesn't happen, or openAI wins. (They haven't even been sued yet!). That way I can have proof that you were wrong on this. I will let you know.

>>chrisj+Aa
Thanks that’s fair.

>>stale2+XZ1
What an obnoxious rhetorical technique you are engaging in.

>Horray! You agree with me that everyone in the situation is completely in the clear because she isn't saying that her voice is that, and she isn't going around repeating movie lines, or dressing up as her.

I never said she represented she's ScarJo. It is OpenAI that did these representations and that's why ScarJo's attorney reached out to them. I have never said the voice actor did anything wrong and I have clarified this with you several times.

>Also, here is an opinion from some who actually seems to know what they are talking about, and has legal experience:

I know exactly what I'm talking about and I'm an attorney. Of course I don't expect you to do anything with this fact but to try and shove it back in my face.

>And you, the not lawyer are not in agreement with an actual expert on the matter.

I am a lawyer, read my comment history if you'd like. Yawn. The person you are quoting is just providing their own characterization of the issue, but there is no actual right of the voice actress that is being violated. It is her customers that have a constraint, she's free to work as she pleases. Of course she can't on her own pretend to be ScarJo to profit off of it, but nobody accused her of that.

>But whatever. I am more than happy to come back to you and your comments later, when either a lawsuit doesn't happen, or openAI wins. (They haven't even been sued yet!). That way I can have proof that you were wrong on this. I will let you know.

I'm absolutely right about this, I can promise you that much.

>>freeja+Ra2
> I'm absolutely right about this, I can promise you that much

Great, then when the results come in, we can re-evaluate your statements!

If either OpenAI wins, or there is never any lawsuit to begin with, then we can know that you were wrong on all of this.

>>Comple+R3
But he DID tweet the ref to the movie, so that's settled.

>>Sebb76+s5
> Except there wasn't any promotion. The only thing close would be Sams tweet,

Yeah, that's promotion.

> but this was not an official statement

Yes of course it was. That's what being a CEO fricking means.

>>stale2+1m2
Whether or not there is no lawsuit has absolutely no bearing on the fact that right of publicity laws exist and ScarJo has a claim against OpenAI.

>>justeo+(OP)
The point is : for a little podcast to use some AI to make a couple of ephemeral jokes about real people should absolutely be allowed and might be one of the few moral use cases of AI. (see dudesy podcast humor like george carlin standup and tom brady standup)

But for a massive tech company, to fuck over an individual artist in such a blatantly disrespectful way is hugely different.

>>newacc+UW1
I don’t think it’s been leaked. I could have sworn that I’ve seen one scene with the original voice on like a DVD special feature, but I can’t find anything online