Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 1001 posts

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#441

Post by rockemsockem »

thefourthchime wrote: post #397
rockemsockem wrote: post #247

This is interesting to hear and if she decides to sue there's extremely clear precedent on her side. The fact that they reached out to her multiple times and insinuated it was supposed to sound like her with Sam's "her" tweet makes a pretty clear connection to her. Without that they'd probably be fine. Bette Midler sued Ford under very similar circumstances and won. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Moto…

I wonder if Scarlett Johansson really has a legal copyright since Warner Bros. owns the rights to the movie "Her." It would be like Dan Castellaneta trying to get a copyright for Homer Simpson when the character is owned by Fox.

It's not copyright, you can't copyright a voice, it's down to likeness laws. It seems to me that they clearly invoked her likeness as a celebrity.

It'll be interesting to see what happens if she sues and refuses to settle.

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#442

Post by ethbr1 »

elicash wrote: post #400
sneak wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you mad? We have no rights to the sound of our voice. There is nothing wrong with someone or something else making sounds that sound like us, even if we don’t want it to happen. No one is harmed.

The law can actually be interesting and nuanced on this: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications...

I think it's a different argument with respect to famous media celebrities* too.

If someone clones a random person's voice for commercial purposes, the public likely has no idea who the voice's identity is. Consequently, it's just the acoustic voice.

If someone clones a famous media celebrity's voice, the public has a much greater chance of recognizing the voice and associating it with a specific person.

Which then opens a different question of 'Is the commercial use of the voice appropriating the real person's fame for their own gain?'

Add in the facts that media celebrities' values are partially defined by how people see them, and that they are often paid for their endorsements, and it's a much clearer case that (a) the use potentially influenced the value of their public image & (b) the use was theft, because it was taking something which otherwise would have had value.

Neither consideration exists with 'random person's voice' (with deference to voice actors).

* Defined as 'someone for whom there is an expectation that the general public would recognize their voice or image'

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#443

Post by MBCook »

ml-anon wrote: post #151
MBCook wrote: post #58

I really hope she sues the company to hell and back. She has the resources to fight back and make an example of them, and they have the resources to make it worthwhile.

Scarlett Johansson made Disney cave. She’s going to absolutely destroy this band of grifters.

Not only that, I don’t think Disney wants this precedent. They may also want to get back on her good side. Either way given they own a number of movies with her in starring roles I wouldn’t be surprised if they were happy to help in her lawsuit with the legal fees.

Hell they may sue on their own or join as another damaged party.

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#444

Post by DavidPiper »

wilg wrote: post #241
mepiethree wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think for most people the answer is “worse”.

[flagged]

Not OP, or the replier, but I think the longer answer here is that if Scarlett Johansson can't win a lawsuit against a company that has effectively:

(1) Used content she has created (vocal lines) in order to train a generative AI with the ability to create more of that content (vocal lines), without permission or payment, let alone acknowledgement

(2) In doing so removed the scarcity of the content she provides (Generative AI is effectively unlimited in the lines it can produce once effectively trained)

Then no smaller time actor, voice actor, artist, musician, etc, is likely to have any chance defending themselves against the theft of their work for AI purposes.

And, with that precedent set, the legal and financial landscape of art and creativity will have changed in a way that discourages anybody from creating original works for financial gain, because we've systematised the creation of original and derivative works with no legal or financial ramifications.

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#445

Post by dv_dt »

smt88 wrote: post #364
ncr100 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scar Jo thought it sounded like herself, and so did people who knew her personally. That is what matters. OWNERSHIP over her contributions to the world.

I mostly agree with you, but I actually don't think it matters if it sounded exactly like her or not. The crime is in the training: did they use her voice or not? If someone licenses an impersonator's voice and it gets very close to the real thing, that feels like an impossible situation for a court to settle and it should probably just be legal (if repugnant).

As I understand it (though I may be wrong) in music sampling cases, it doesn’t matter if the “sample” is using an actual clip from a recording or if were recreated from scratch using a new media (e.g. direct midi sequence), if a song sampling another song is recognizable it is still infringing.

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#447

Post by rockemsockem »

thefourthchime wrote: post #429
rockemsockem wrote: post #247

This is interesting to hear and if she decides to sue there's extremely clear precedent on her side. The fact that they reached out to her multiple times and insinuated it was supposed to sound like her with Sam's "her" tweet makes a pretty clear connection to her. Without that they'd probably be fine. Bette Midler sued Ford under very similar circumstances and won. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Moto…

I'm not sure. In the case of *Midler v. Ford Motor Co.*, the advertising agency hired a singer to do an impression of Bette Midler herself, not a character she performs. The singer was instructed to sound as much like Bette Midler as possible while performing her hit song "Do You Want to Dance?" for the Ford commercial. This use of a sound-alike voice led to the lawsuit, as it mimicked Midler's distinctive voice with…

I haven't seen the commercial, but I feel like it's also probably not identical. My read of the case is that the context connecting Midler to the ad without her consent was a key feature, which makes me think Scarlett Johansson would be in a similarly strong position if she brought a case.

But ultimately I'm also not sure. There are some differences that courts could find important. I hope she sues and refuses to settle, so we can find out!

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#448

Post by justin66 »

callalex wrote: post #264

I think we should all strive to meet the standards of “Weird” Al Yankovic. He set out to do something that was widely hated by a very powerful and litigious sector, and yet after a full career he is widely revered by both the public and the industry. He masterfully sidestepped any problems by adhering to the basic concept of consent while still getting what he wanted 99% of the time.

Did anyone say no to him other than Prince?

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#449

Post by ProjectArcturis »

anon373839 wrote: post #62

Well, that statement lays out a damning timeline: - OpenAI approached Scarlett last fall, and she refused. - Two days before the GPT-4o launch, they contacted her agent and asked that she reconsider. (Two days! This means they already had everything they needed to ship the product with Scarlett’s cloned voice.) - Not receiving a response, OpenAI demos the product anyway, with Sam tweeting “her” in reference to Scarle…

I'm beginning to think this Sam Altman guy isn't so trustworthy.

Re: Statement from Scarlett Johansson on the OpenAI "Sky" voice

#450

Post by ncallaway »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #308
ncallaway wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are we seriously saying we can't make voices that are similar to celebrities, when not using their actual voice? They clearly thought it was close enough that they asked for permission, twice. And got two no’s. Going forward with it at that point was super fucked up. It’s very bad to not ask permission when you should. It’s far worse to ask for permission and then ignore the response. Totally ethically bankrupt.

Effective altruism would posit that it is worth one voice theft to help speed the rate of life saving ai technology in the hands of everyone.

Effective Altruists are just shitty utilitarians that never take into account all the myriad ways that unmoderated utilitarianism has horrific failure modes.

Their hubris will walk them right into federal prison for fraud if they’re not careful.

If Effective Altruists want to speed the adoption of AI with the general public, they’d do well to avoid talking about it, lest the general public make a connection between EA and AI

I will say, when EA are talking about where they want to donate their money with the most efficacy, I have no problem with it. When they start talking about the utility of committing crimes or other moral wrongs because the ends justify the means, I tend to start assuming they’re bad at morality and ethics.

Post reply on HN