151–160 of 1001 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's clearly not her voice right? The version that's been on the app for a year just isn't. Like, it clearly intending to be slightly reminiscent of her, but it's also very clearly not. Are we seriously saying we can't make voices that are similar to celebrities, when not using their actual voice?
We can seriously say that, yes. The courts have been saying this in the US for over 30 years. See Midler v. Ford Motor Co.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI claimed they hired a different professional actor who performed using her own voice [1]. If so, I suspect they’ll be okay in a court of law — having a voice similar to a celebrity isn’t illegal. It’ll likely cheese off actors and performers though. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/05/20/openai-sa...
Seems like sama may have put a big hole in that argument when he tweeted "her", now it is very easy to say that they knowingly cloned ScarJo's likeness. When will tech leaders learn to stop tweeting.
I'll ask the devil's advocate / contrarian question: How big a slice of the human voice space does Scarlett lay a claim to?
The evidence would be in her favor in a civil court case. OTOH, a less famous woman's claim that any given synthesized voice sounds like hers would probably fail.
Contrast this with copyrighted fiction. That space is dimensionally much bigger. If you're not deliberately trying to copy some work, it's very unlikely that you'll get in trouble accidentally.
The closest comparison is the Marvin Gaye estate's case. Arguably, the estate laid claim to a large fraction of what is otherwise a dimensionally large space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharrell_Williams_v._Bridgepor...
consent appears to be optional for everything OpenAI does
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This statement from scarlet really changed my perspective. I use and loved the Sky voice and I did feel it sounded a little like her, but moreover it was the best of their voice offerings. I was mad when they removed it. But now I’m mad it was ever there to begin with. This timeline makes it clear that this wasn’t a coincidence and maybe not even a hiring of an impressionist (which is where things get a little more w…
But it's clearly not her voice right? The version that's been on the app for a year just isn't. Like, it clearly intending to be slightly reminiscent of her, but it's also very clearly not. 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer, based on two different court precedents (Bette Midler, Tom Waits), is that the company can't do that. Companies cannot hire soundalike people to advertise their products after the person with a distinctive voice they really wanted declined. Doesn't matter if they hired a soundalike and used her voice.
There is a big, big difference between actively and intentional imitating a voice, and having a broadly similar voice though!
Well, this confirms that OpenAI have been shooting from the hip, not that we needed much confirmation. The fact that they repeatedly tried to hire Johansson, then went ahead and made a soundalike while explicitly describing that they were trying to make it be like her voice in the movie … is pretty bad for them.
OpenAI claimed they hired a different professional actor who performed using her own voice [1]. If so, I suspect they’ll be okay in a court of law — having a voice similar to a celebrity isn’t illegal. It’ll likely cheese off actors and performers though. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/05/20/openai-sa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, absolutely illegal. You don't need to copyright anything, you simply own the rights your own likeness -- your visual appearance and your voice. A company can't take a photo from your Facebook and plaster it across an advertisement for their product without you giving them the rights to do that. And if you're a known public figure, this includes lookalikes and soundalikes as well. You can't hire a ScarJo imperson…
But is that Scarlett Jo or Producers of Her that own the copyright? If you imitate Darth Vader, I don't think James Earl Jones has as much case for likeliness as Star Wars franchise