What Scarlett Johansson vs. OpenAI Could Look Like in Court • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by CRConrad » Wed, May 29, 2024, 10:23 PM UTC

Maxatar wrote: post #27

freejazz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If guilty, will it be illegal for people sounding like famous people get voice work ? It continues to baffle me that people formulate this issue as it just being about the similar voices as opposed to OpenAI's efforts to capitalize on ScarJo's likeness by making explicit references to ScarJo and her work, in combination with using a similar voice. Obviously, it is not against the law to have a similar voice as some…

Because it's not obvious and just using that word over and over again doesn't make it true. Did OpenAI want to use a similar voice to Scarlett Johansson's specifically because it's her, and they want to capitalize off of her fame or her personhood specifically? Or did OpenAI want to use a voice that sounds pleasant and appealing and as it so happens Scarlett Johansson has just such a voice and used such a voice in a…

> In other words, if Scarlett Johansson had a different voice, perhaps even an unappealing one, would they still have used it

Not what you meant, but: No, of course not, because then Johansson wouldn't have been in Her.

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

#62

Post by ml-anon » Wed, May 29, 2024, 10:29 PM UTC

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…

Why the fuck would one of the most famous people on the planet who is already phenomenally wealthy want to be the voice of a company that has already maligned her for an application that people are already demonstrating the use of to have sexually explicit conversations.

Anyone signing up to your revenue sharing scheme is going to be all over the internet saying the most vile things imaginable.

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

#63

Post by ml-anon » Wed, May 29, 2024, 10:32 PM UTC

kelsey98765431 wrote: post #53

Funny how the ownership class is so strongly against technology that makes their "ownership" of something as silly as a voice at risk of losing its return on investment they will go to battle over this. This shows weakness in human voice talent, just look at this massive liability using humans introduces. Sorry honey, just because you think s voice sounds like you doesn't give you the right to throw a fit. Seems like…

Jfc. You’re raging about the “ownership” class as if OpenAI isn’t a vassal of the largest corporation on the planet.

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

#64

Post by CRConrad » Wed, May 29, 2024, 10:33 PM UTC

kaibee wrote: post #45

threeseed wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parody is considered fair use because the public knows that it isn't the celebrity. This isn't the case here. If you want analogies it's like creating a Ferrari body, putting it around a cheap car and trying to sell it.

> If you want analogies it's like creating a Ferrari body, putting it around a cheap car and trying to sell it. A proud tradition? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_300

Eh, what? No, not at all. That was, if anything, the other way around.

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

#65

Post by Maxatar » Wed, May 29, 2024, 10:36 PM UTC

CRConrad wrote: post #61

Maxatar wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's not obvious and just using that word over and over again doesn't make it true. Did OpenAI want to use a similar voice to Scarlett Johansson's specifically because it's her, and they want to capitalize off of her fame or her personhood specifically? Or did OpenAI want to use a voice that sounds pleasant and appealing and as it so happens Scarlett Johansson has just such a voice and used such a voice in a…

> In other words, if Scarlett Johansson had a different voice, perhaps even an unappealing one, would they still have used it Not what you meant, but: No, of course not, because then Johansson wouldn't have been in Her.

Right, but one can imagine a popular film about AI casting a voice actor not because the voice actor has an appealing or soothing voice, but because the actor is themselves very popular and will draw a large audience. Perhaps say Arnold Schwarzenegger is cast and OpenAI decides to create a voice very similar to the one Arnold uses in that movie because OpenAI wants to leverage the fame associated with that movie, that character, or Arnold himself. In that case the argument would be very strong that OpenAI is taking advantage of personality rights as opposed to mimicking a nice sounding voice that suits their product.

According to your argument, Scarlett Johansson was not cast in Her because something about her personhood would draw audiences to the movie, or something about her personality and character was being leveraged, but rather that her voice has some nice technical properties that made it a suitable choice for the movie.

In that case, the argument is less strong that OpenAI is infringing on Scarlett's personality rights, and more the case that they liked the properties and qualities that her voice has, and when she specifically turned down the offer to lend her voice to OpenAI, OpenAI found someone else who had similar properties and qualities as a replacement.

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

#66

Post by KittenInABox » Wed, May 29, 2024, 10:42 PM UTC

anonymousab wrote: post #46

justin66 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If guilty, will it be illegal for people sounding like famous people get voice work ? The question implies that you believe a professional voice actor has a single voice they can use. That is a silly thing to believe.

What if it was their natural voice and cadence? People can sound alike or even identical.

People can sound alike, but if you hire someone because they sound like someone famous hoping people believe you hired the famous person, that's bad.

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

#67

Post by amanzi » Wed, May 29, 2024, 10:45 PM UTC

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…

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if this is relevant or not, but it's not really Scarlett Johansson's voice we're talking about, it's "the character in Her that Scarlett Johansson voiced". I'd be surprised if Scarlett's natural voice matches the one in Her - I assume she would have changed her pitch and/or cadence for the movie to match the director's requirements. Samantha's voice in Her has a subtle, 'not-quite-natural' sound to it, which would make sense for a computer-generated voice.

Can the movie studio that produced Her claim copyright over Samantha's voice? If they release "Her 2" without Scarlett Johansson, could the movie studio hire someone who sounds like Scarlett to play Samantha's character?

I don't think this case is as simple as people make it out to be. Even Sam Altman's tweet: "Her", seems to confirm they took inspiration from the movie Her, so is it wrong to hire a voice actor that sounds like the character in the movie? If Sam had tweeted, "Scarlett", then it would be very different.

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

#68

Post by bobthepanda » Wed, May 29, 2024, 10:51 PM UTC

williamcotton wrote: post #47

bobthepanda wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 PE…

A voice seems to be covered by trademark as opposed to copyright. Two people can naturally have a very similar voice and it would be pretty absurd to have someone not allowed to use their own voice. It isn’t absurd for someone in a specific industry to have their voice protected within that trade.

Publicity rights are distinct from both copyright and trademark. In California, they basically have the same protections, lifetime + 70 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Celebrities_Rights_...

In 1988, Midler v. Ford Motor Co was decided in favor of Bette Midler after Ford hired an impersonator for their commercials. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

Tom Waits won a lawsuit against Frito Lay for a radio commercial where they hired a impersonator. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-09-me-238-st...

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

#69

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 » Wed, May 29, 2024, 11:58 PM UTC

""It was a boneheaded move," says David Herlihy, a copyright lawyer and music industry professor at Northeastern University. "A miscalculation."

Other lawyers see OpenAI's behavior as so manifestly goofy they suspect the whole scandal might be a deliberate stunt..."

It seems the people promoting "artificial intelligence" are not themselves intelligent. Funny coincidence.

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

#70

Post by vessenes » Thu, May 30, 2024, 1:54 AM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #68

williamcotton wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A voice seems to be covered by trademark as opposed to copyright. Two people can naturally have a very similar voice and it would be pretty absurd to have someone not allowed to use their own voice. It isn’t absurd for someone in a specific industry to have their voice protected within that trade.

Publicity rights are distinct from both copyright and trademark. In California, they basically have the same protections, lifetime + 70 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Celebrities_Rights_... In 1988, Midler v. Ford Motor Co was decided in favor of Bette Midler after Ford hired an impersonator for their commercials. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co . Tom Waits won a lawsuit against…

I'm aware of both of those -- this voice actor is not a "Johannsen sound-alike" actor. And she is not reciting lines from "Her". It's a significant difference, and there are real harms to any actor not already 'famous' implied by the sort of ruling people here think is obvious -- it's a big leap to say "The Federal Government will not allow you to work because you sound too much like X and so other person, signed, Judge Alsop."