zlacker

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.

>>column+(OP)
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.

>>johtso+79
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.