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

OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

#231

Post by kunley »

hotdogscout wrote: post #6

A sensational lie spread much quicker than the truth even on HN, with no sign of course correction. I hope Sam feels fine after so much baseless harassment.

It's funny how uncritical protecting of mr Altman became a kind of religion for some, probably because such people might have certain hopes with his product, so they uncontrollably loose themselves in this view that everything he does needs to be cool & right.

But no, he's a human making mistakes. A lot of mistakes, as it turns out

Re: OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

#232

Post by hnlmorg »

dragonelite wrote: post #213
scoot wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They contacted Johansson after the Sky voice was created, they didn’t create it because she declined. The voice actor isn’t a Johansson imitator, and the voice isn’t an imitation. The only similarity between the Sky voice and Johansson’s is that it’s a white American female, so by your logic a significant percentage of the US population has a case.

Imaging this to be such a legal minefield, can't sell my own voice because a celeb sounds a bit alike as my own voice.

You wouldn’t be the one liable. Any company that hired you might be liable if you sound like a famous voice and the more famous individual had already declined using their voice.

The company would also be liable if they used your voice and claimed it was someone more famous.

Ultimately you’re not liable for having a similar voice because you’re not trying to fool people you’re someone else. It’s the company that hired you who’s doing that.

This is why tribute acts and impressionists are fine…as long as they are clear they’re not the original artist

Re: OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

#233

Post by sheepscreek »

omnicognate wrote: post #171

Comments full of people reading the headline and assuming that what OpenAI did here is fine because it's a different actress, but that's not how "Right of publicity" (*) laws work. The article itself explains that there is significant legal risk here: > Mitch Glazier, the chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, said that Johansson may have a strong case against OpenAI if she brings forth a l…

Here’s the thing though - if I was OpenAI, I’d be more interested in the actor sounding like the voice agent in Her, than Scarlett Johansen.

After all, Scarlett was playing a role in the movie (lending her voice to it), and they wanted to replicate this acted out role.

If the intent alone mattered, OpenAI should be in the clear. More so if they never specially instructed this voice actor to “sound like Scarlett”.

On the other hand, Sama reaching out to Scarlett directly over a number of times doesn’t lend a good look. Perhaps they felt that Scarlett has already done it (acted out as a voice agent they were trying to bring to life) and she would truly understand what they were going for.

Maybe, it was also a bit for marketing and the buzz-worthy story it might generate (“OpenAI worked with ScarJo to create their life-like AI voice. Scarlett was also the voice behind the AI in “Her”).

However, I’m not a lawyer and the the law could very well view this more favourably towards Scarlett.

Re: OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

#234

Post by z7 »

zecg wrote: post #150
LewisVerstappen wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't understand how delusional you have to be to think OpenAI wanted this to happen.

It's a very cheap way to get people to realize gpt4-o is something new.

So they planned to remove ChatGPT's most popular voice, causing anger among many of their customers?

Re: OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

#235

Post by marcus_holmes »

dragonelite wrote: post #213
scoot wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They contacted Johansson after the Sky voice was created, they didn’t create it because she declined. The voice actor isn’t a Johansson imitator, and the voice isn’t an imitation. The only similarity between the Sky voice and Johansson’s is that it’s a white American female, so by your logic a significant percentage of the US population has a case.

Imaging this to be such a legal minefield, can't sell my own voice because a celeb sounds a bit alike as my own voice.

A celeb creates a particular voice personality for a role as an AI in a very successful movie. You create an AI, and "co-incidentally" create a strikingly similar voice personality for your AI. Not a legal minefield, you copied the movie, you owe them.

They could have used any accent, any tone, anyone. Literally anyone else. And it would have been fine. But they obviously copied the movie even if they used a different actress.

Re: OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

#236

Post by ben_w »

gnicholas wrote: post #106
ben_w wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then why pull the voice in the first place? Several possible reasons. 1. They're not actively malicious and have the emotional capacity to feel embarrassed 2. They know they were talking about her voice and making comparisons and that this is A Bad Look and they've had a terrible week PR-wise already 3. Might be a trademark violation, I'm not sure how that law works (in general let alone voice) but there's a reason…

1 is possible, 2 strikes me as unlikely (how bad of a week was it? I didn't get that sense). 3 doesn't make sense — this has nothing to do with trademark law. A logo is a 'mark' that identifies a brand, but a voice is not a 'mark.'

#2 because they're humans and humans act emotionally — it's entirely possible for them to just go "aaaa" like all the people in comments sections do regularly.

#3 famous people do seem to have some control over their likeness; I don't know how real that control is or anything about how it works, just that it looks like this from the outside. IANAL, so treat that as a claim of analogy not literal.

Re: OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

#237

Post by kombookcha »

rowanG077 wrote: post #219
column wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's a sequel and Brad Pitt was in the first movie and you use trickery to make people think he's in the second movie, there's a case. See Crispin Glover, the dad from Back to the future, which was NOT the upside-down dad in BTTF2. They settled for 760k USD.

Openai never claimed it was Scarlett Johansson though. They didn't trick anyone.

Sam tweeting "Her" is a clear as daylight indication that they are deliberately trying to associate the voice with ScarJo's performance.

They're squarely in the zone with knockoff products deliberately aping the branding of the real thing.

"Dr Peppy isn't a trick to piggyback on Dr Pepper, it's a legally distinct brand!" might give you enough of a fig leaf in court with a good lawyer, but it's very obvious what kind of company you're running to anybody paying attention.

Re: OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

#238

Post by exitb »

gnicholas wrote: post #223
scoot wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They contacted Johansson after the Sky voice was created, they didn’t create it because she declined. The voice actor isn’t a Johansson imitator, and the voice isn’t an imitation. The only similarity between the Sky voice and Johansson’s is that it’s a white American female, so by your logic a significant percentage of the US population has a case.

> The only similarity between the voice and Johansson’s is that it’s female, so by your logic half of California has a case. My understanding was that the voices sound quite similar. I haven't heard the original Sky voice so don't know. Are there any samples online?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uM8jhcqDP0&t=30s

Re: OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

#239

Post by z7 »

blitzar wrote: post #202
flexie wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a clone. What is ethically murky about it? You want Brad Pitt for your movie. He says no. You hire Benicio Del Toro because of the physical resemblence. Big deal. Having seen "Her" and many other Scarlet Johansson movies, I didn't think for a second that GPT-4o sounded like her. On the contrary, I wondered why they had chosen the voice of a middle aged woman, and whether that was about being woke. It wasn't…

You then tweet out, "look its Brad Pitt in my movie".

They never claimed it was Scarlett Johansson's voice though.

Re: OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records show

#240

Post by moralestapia »

gnicholas wrote: post #216
omnicognate wrote: post #171

Comments full of people reading the headline and assuming that what OpenAI did here is fine because it's a different actress, but that's not how "Right of publicity" (*) laws work. The article itself explains that there is significant legal risk here: > Mitch Glazier, the chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, said that Johansson may have a strong case against OpenAI if she brings forth a l…

The Midler case is readily distinguishable. From Wikipedia: > Ford Motor created an ad campaign for the Mercury Sable that specifically was meant to inspire nostalgic sentiments through the use of famous songs from the 1970s sung by their original artists. When the original artists refused to accept, impersonators were used to sing the original songs for the commercials. Midler was asked to sing a famous song of hers…

>The tweet is still a thorn in OA's side, of course, but that's not likely to be determinative IMO (IAAL).

It amounts to nothing as it was a single word and they could spin that any way they want, it's even a generic word, lol. The "worst" interpretation on that tweet could be "we were inspired by said movie to create a relatable product" which is not an unlawful thing to do.

Post reply on HN