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.
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?
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:
"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.
>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.
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.