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

What Scarlett Johansson vs. OpenAI Could Look Like in Court

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 81 posts

Re: What Scarlett Johansson vs. OpenAI Could Look Like in Court

#31

Post by tsimionescu »

vessenes wrote: post #26

I’m mystified as to two things here: first that people feel this is ‘open and shut’ in Ms Johannsen’s favor, and second that this hasn’t been settled economically. IF: OpenAI had advertised SJ as being a voice, had sold the plus subscription with that voice as a benefit, and had instructed talent scouting and internal editors to ‘copy her’ then this would be open and shut. We know for sure the first part did not happ…

For the first part, you're forgetting the "her" tweet, and the attempts of getting SJ to sell them her voice as recently as two days before they launched her sound-alike. And we know they thought it's a soundalike because they immediately changed it once the scandal started.

For the second part, you're assuming that they just didn't offer enough money. It's very likely instead that SJ didn't want to associate her brand with this business.

Re: What Scarlett Johansson vs. OpenAI Could Look Like in Court

#32

Post by surfingdino »

bgentry wrote: post #6
jmclnx wrote: post #3

If it goes to court, it will be an interesting case and may have big ramifications. I believe the person used was selected because she sounded like Scarlett. If guilty, will it be illegal for people sounding like famous people get voice work ? I have heard ads with people sounding like various US Presidents over the years, could doing that be illegal ?

What if I look like a famous actor/actress or model? Should I not be allowed to act or model professionally? Or if I sound like a famous singer, should I not be allowed to sing for profit? What if my paintings have a similar style to a famous painter, should I not be allowed to paint for a living?

If you impersonate another actor for profit claiming to be him/her you may be facing legal action. There is a difference in selling yourself as "Scarlett Johansson" vs. "A Scarlett Johansson impersonator" vs. your own name/stage name. If it's covert and deceiving, you are in trouble, if it is overt, you are fine and that's why they world has so many Elvis impersonators. Although I see a new market opening for Kate Moss impersonators https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40498668

When it comes to works of art, if you tell the buyers/viewers it's yours you are fine, but if you paint a copy of a famous painting and claim it to be the original one, you are a criminal.

Re: What Scarlett Johansson vs. OpenAI Could Look Like in Court

#33

Post by opello »

freejazz wrote: post #22
opello wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obviously, it is against the law to capitalize upon another person's likeness without their permission. This seems similar to MikeRoweSoft.com[1] which was ultimately settled instead of being tested in court. Maybe closer, does this line of thinking mean that the twins Mary-Kate and Ashley Olson[2] couldn't have distinct professional acting careers without one another's explicit permission because of their similari…

>Maybe closer, does this line of thinking mean that the twins Mary-Kate and Ashley Olson[2] couldn't have distinct professional acting careers without one another's explicit permission because of their similarity (capitalized on for Full House) as one would necessarily infringe on the likeness of the other? That seems like a bridge too far. What line of thinking? Right of publicity laws are not new. If one of the twi…

> If one of the twins purported to be the other, yes, why wouldn't the other twin have a claim?

I agree that attribution is key.

Since identical twins are often confused, the issue resolves itself with credit. But absent some attribution or credit, it seems like there would be a similar problem in the case of twins. This seems like why credits in works of entertainment are particularly important.

I'm just left wondering if OpenAI discloses who provided the voice and that person isn't prohibited from entering the marketplace of "voice work" (which would seem unfair?) then it seems like this would fizzle out?

Re: What Scarlett Johansson vs. OpenAI Could Look Like in Court

#34

Post by frabjoused »

bsimpson wrote: post #30

It's interesting to see Sam Altman on the record claiming this was a complete accident the same week that it came out that he got fired from OpenAI last year for having a pattern of handwaving "misunderstandings" when he got caught on the wrong side of the truth. Nobody believes that you gave a feminine voice to an AI and nobody involved considered the similarities to the most famous feminine AI character, especially…

This week might be the bit flip on his reputation. Starting to see defense comments getting downvoted, when earlier critical comments would get downvoted. Once you pass that 50% opinion it's pretty hard to reverse.

Re: What Scarlett Johansson vs. OpenAI Could Look Like in Court

#35

Post by jmugan »

Yeah, I don't get this at all. I don't have a donkey in this fight, but it seems to me that 1. They wanted to build the experience from the movie Her. 2. They wanted to use Johansson's voice because that would be a cool tie-in. 3. Johansson said no, so they went with somebody else. 4. End of story.

Re: What Scarlett Johansson vs. OpenAI Could Look Like in Court

#36

Post by [deleted] »

mateus1 wrote: post #29
vessenes wrote: post #26

I’m mystified as to two things here: first that people feel this is ‘open and shut’ in Ms Johannsen’s favor, and second that this hasn’t been settled economically. IF: OpenAI had advertised SJ as being a voice, had sold the plus subscription with that voice as a benefit, and had instructed talent scouting and internal editors to ‘copy her’ then this would be open and shut. We know for sure the first part did not happ…

It’s not just a matter of the voice being a 1:1 match with Johansenns’s or that it used it as an input to build the model. What is definitive is that Open AI intently based this on the film Her as per docs and tweets && they used her voice similarity after being declined more than once.

[deleted]

Re: What Scarlett Johansson vs. OpenAI Could Look Like in Court

#37

Post by michaelbuckbee »

tsimionescu wrote: post #31
vessenes wrote: post #26

I’m mystified as to two things here: first that people feel this is ‘open and shut’ in Ms Johannsen’s favor, and second that this hasn’t been settled economically. IF: OpenAI had advertised SJ as being a voice, had sold the plus subscription with that voice as a benefit, and had instructed talent scouting and internal editors to ‘copy her’ then this would be open and shut. We know for sure the first part did not happ…

For the first part, you're forgetting the "her" tweet, and the attempts of getting SJ to sell them her voice as recently as two days before they launched her sound-alike. And we know they thought it's a soundalike because they immediately changed it once the scandal started. For the second part, you're assuming that they just didn't offer enough money. It's very likely instead that SJ didn't want to associate her bra…

To add on to your comment, in the arts and creative space there are substantial levels of opposition to AI as it's perceived as a job killer and maybe at some level perverse or akin to an automated plagiarism system that steals their intellectual property (this is complicated and not my personal take, but I see where they're coming from).

It's quite likely that SJ would suffer from severe reputational damage from being the literal voice of AI.

Re: What Scarlett Johansson vs. OpenAI Could Look Like in Court

#38

Post by soperj »

frabjoused wrote: post #34
bsimpson wrote: post #30

It's interesting to see Sam Altman on the record claiming this was a complete accident the same week that it came out that he got fired from OpenAI last year for having a pattern of handwaving "misunderstandings" when he got caught on the wrong side of the truth. Nobody believes that you gave a feminine voice to an AI and nobody involved considered the similarities to the most famous feminine AI character, especially…

This week might be the bit flip on his reputation. Starting to see defense comments getting downvoted, when earlier critical comments would get downvoted. Once you pass that 50% opinion it's pretty hard to reverse.

you'd need a long standing campaign ala Bill Gates from the 2000s. It seems like the truth shines through eventually though.

Re: What Scarlett Johansson vs. OpenAI Could Look Like in Court

#39

Post by bgentry »

surfingdino wrote: post #32
bgentry wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I look like a famous actor/actress or model? Should I not be allowed to act or model professionally? Or if I sound like a famous singer, should I not be allowed to sing for profit? What if my paintings have a similar style to a famous painter, should I not be allowed to paint for a living?

If you impersonate another actor for profit claiming to be him/her you may be facing legal action. There is a difference in selling yourself as "Scarlett Johansson" vs. "A Scarlett Johansson impersonator" vs. your own name/stage name. If it's covert and deceiving, you are in trouble, if it is overt, you are fine and that's why they world has so many Elvis impersonators. Although I see a new market opening for Kate Mo…

Do you have evidence that this voice actor was billing herself as a Scarlett Johansson impersonator or anything of that sort?

Re: What Scarlett Johansson vs. OpenAI Could Look Like in Court

#40

Post by bobthepanda »

vessenes wrote: post #26

I’m mystified as to two things here: first that people feel this is ‘open and shut’ in Ms Johannsen’s favor, and second that this hasn’t been settled economically. IF: OpenAI had advertised SJ as being a voice, had sold the plus subscription with that voice as a benefit, and had instructed talent scouting and internal editors to ‘copy her’ then this would be open and shut. We know for sure the first part did not happ…

commercial benefit for copyright is not limited to literally selling things but also covers ads and publicity.

the legal system may be asked to consider if a press release for a new model counts as advertising, and if implying a connection to Her was a significant part of said advertisement.

the fact that it does not cost money does not make it legal. PETA can't go around running its mouth saying "Beyonce supports PETA and banning pets" when she's said no such thing.

Post reply on HN