zlacker

Midler v. Ford is a poor comparison for this case specifically because of: 1. hiring an impersonator 2. copying a song 3. intending to confuse.

If what OpenAI is saying is true, then none of the conditions apply. I'd say (1) is unlikely, (2) is very unlikely, and (3) is maybe, at least to some degree.

>>Athari+(OP)
I would suggest that (3) is a solid "yes" given the other communications around this, and honestly the similarity of the final tone of voice.

Very little suggests an intent to confuse more than tweets from company leaders confirming that there was intent to confuse. What is left on the table is whether actual confusion occurred, which is different.