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

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

#71

Post by vessenes » Thu, May 30, 2024, 1:59 AM 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.

I agree; one's voice should be protected, generally.

However, I do not agree that one should be able to stamp out use of any voice one person deems 'too similar' from plying that trade. This would be pretty surprising; it raises numerous questions of fair play, who decides, whether the courts wish to be in the position of making these determinations, and ultimately, I think the balance of equity is against making a broad decision like this, full stop. People have the right to work, and especially have the right to work in a fair environment where they are not unduly taking advantage of other's rights and trademarks.

Marilyn Monroe did not have rights to ban women from blonde curls, or beauty marks, Bettie Page did not have the ability to stop numerous lookalikes from selling pinup photos; this is the same situation.

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

#72

Post by vessenes » Thu, May 30, 2024, 2:05 AM UTC

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…

I'm not forgetting "Her", and I think it's in-bounds to say a company is inspired by / referencing a film in PR -- I can list quite a few SV startups that directly tie their DNA to an inspiring book or film, and heretofore that's generally not considered objectionable. (For instance, Paypal / Cryptonomicon).

The sky voice has been part of the app since the launch, it was not newly launched for GPT4o.

You're missing a key step in your logic chain: That they pulled the voice when SJ made a public complaint does not imply that they thought it was a soundalike, or that they documented they were making a soundalike, or that a soundalike is wrong, or that they thought they were doing something wrong when they hired the Sky voice actor. It just means that they pulled the Sky voice on public request from SJ.

That, combined with SJ reports that she turned down a licensing deal, and WaPo reporting that the Sky voice actor sounds like the voice delivered in ChatGPT, are pretty much the only facts we have right now.

As to SJ brand decisions -- maybe. I would bet the offer was low / not discussed, instead of it being substantial. But, that is also speculation.

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

#73

Post by vessenes » Thu, May 30, 2024, 2:07 AM UTC

opello wrote: post #42

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…

On the sound alike front it seems like attribution must resolve this since it can't possibly be reasonable to deny access to the marketplace of voice work because someone else that you sound like "got there first"?

Exactly.

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

#74

Post by vessenes » Thu, May 30, 2024, 2:14 AM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #40

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 PE…

So, to be clear, I think you could launch a company that was like "It's 100% exactly as good as the movie Her. Seen the movie Her? This is like that AI. You can download it here", and not legally owe a penny. The concept of the AI in Her is not something that the makers of the film own, and companies are inspired by creative works of all sorts all the time when they make things. This is considered good in American business law.

Agreed that an endorsement, express or implied, is usually something the endorser has rights over.

So, in this case, from your perspective, you'd need to prove that people understood such an endorsement to have happened, and if you want damages, that it benefitted the company and/or harmed the endorser.

On these terms, the facts we know don't seem terrible for OpenAI - they negotiated in good faith for the endorsement, and when she went public / gave a final 'no' they pulled the voice, which apparently was not created by a copycat voice actor, but instead by another woman that SJ claims sounds identical to her. OpenAI has not summarily fallen over or gone bankrupt, in fact, the app that caused controversy hasn't launched yet.

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

#75

Post by tsimionescu » Thu, May 30, 2024, 6:30 AM UTC

surfingdino wrote: post #59

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 women's objections are ignored and women are expected to provide more proof than men. Scarlett Johansson is the third woman so far who made it clear that she is not happy with Altman's/OpenAI's conduct, but they all are being asked to provide more proof of harm done. In case you missed it--his sister made serious allegations and was ignored; then a female board member went public with her reasons for resignin…

His mentally ill sister that the entire family says is lying, about something that allegedly happened when he was a small pre-pubescent child himself. And plenty of people are not attacking either the board member or Scarlett Johansson. Public opinion is at least definitely with SJ.

This really has nothing to do with how women are treated.

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

#76

Post by bobthepanda » Thu, May 30, 2024, 6:41 AM UTC

vessenes wrote: post #74

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…

So, to be clear, I think you could launch a company that was like "It's 100% exactly as good as the movie Her. Seen the movie Her? This is like that AI. You can download it here", and not legally owe a penny. The concept of the AI in Her is not something that the makers of the film own, and companies are inspired by creative works of all sorts all the time when they make things. This is considered good in American bu…

Personality rights in California also cover the right to persona, as in a specific person acting as a specific character. You can sound like ScarJo to some extent, but ScarJo does own her performance of Her and anything like that. Daniel Craig is allowed to be James Bond, but Daniel Craig is not allowed to pretend to be Sean Connery playing James Bond.

And of course there can be impersonators, but there is a world of difference between hiring an impersonator for the express purpose of impersonating where everyone knows that is the case, vs. hiring an impersonator to imply commercial endorsement from the original person.

A commercial endorsement does not require that it be the sole form of endorsement or that it even be financially positive. Ford was running more than one ad campaign when Bette Midler sued and won, and Frito Lay was in a similar boat with Tom Waits.

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

#77

Post by vessenes » Thu, May 30, 2024, 2:02 PM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #76

vessenes wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, to be clear, I think you could launch a company that was like "It's 100% exactly as good as the movie Her. Seen the movie Her? This is like that AI. You can download it here", and not legally owe a penny. The concept of the AI in Her is not something that the makers of the film own, and companies are inspired by creative works of all sorts all the time when they make things. This is considered good in American bu…

Personality rights in California also cover the right to persona , as in a specific person acting as a specific character. You can sound like ScarJo to some extent, but ScarJo does own her performance of Her and anything like that. Daniel Craig is allowed to be James Bond, but Daniel Craig is not allowed to pretend to be Sean Connery playing James Bond. And of course there can be impersonators, but there is a world o…

Yes to all this. Where we are at right now is: guy with scottish accent is available in an app and his name is "Clay". Owner of app tweets how Bond was inspiring to him making the app.

If it can be shown in court that Sky is an impersonation and that SJ is ruled to have endorsed whether through tweets from Sam, or the Sky voice, and that she suffered some damage or that OpenAI benefited in some way before taking it down, then I think she would likely win some money in damages. Unless all those are true, it seems tough to get more than she already got -- a quick removal of the voice.

Few people mention the existing Sky voice actor (whose agent has held her name for safety concerns) is harmed here, quite substantially, by the idea that SJ could control her own performance. At any rate, my point at the top of all this is just that this is not 'open and shut' and I'm not even sure OpenAI has been more than 'aggressive' so far in its launch; we might found out they were, but I don't think the facts on the ground show more than that right now.

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

#78

Post by freejazz » Thu, May 30, 2024, 2:09 PM UTC

opello wrote: post #33

freejazz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 wonder…

IMO it has no bearing who did the voice, the issue is if OpenAI intended to confuse people by associating the similar voice with ScarJo through their marketing. The issue isn't the voice confusion on its own, it's that OpenAI is inducing it by bringing up ScarJo and her work in their marketing of the voice product.

ScarJo obviously doesn't care about the individual voice actress, the voice actress would not have sufficient money to cover any damages ScarJo would allege, especially in comparison to a well-capitalized company like OpenAI. Let's use our heads for a second.

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

#79

Post by freejazz » Thu, May 30, 2024, 2:09 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…

I didn't say her case was obvious. I said there are obviously two categories of types of conduct, one falling into a legal category and one falling into an illegal category. My observation is that much of the discussion here seems to not even acknowledge the reality that Right of Publicity laws exist and what they entail. That really has nothing to do with whether or not her case is good. Your response here seems to further my point, in that you completely run past that and instead debate the specifics (which we don't all know and aren't all privy to, and would be the disputed facts in any potential litigation).

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

#80

Post by bobthepanda » Thu, May 30, 2024, 8:19 PM UTC

vessenes wrote: post #77

bobthepanda wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personality rights in California also cover the right to persona , as in a specific person acting as a specific character. You can sound like ScarJo to some extent, but ScarJo does own her performance of Her and anything like that. Daniel Craig is allowed to be James Bond, but Daniel Craig is not allowed to pretend to be Sean Connery playing James Bond. And of course there can be impersonators, but there is a world o…

Yes to all this. Where we are at right now is: guy with scottish accent is available in an app and his name is "Clay". Owner of app tweets how Bond was inspiring to him making the app. If it can be shown in court that Sky is an impersonation and that SJ is ruled to have endorsed whether through tweets from Sam, or the Sky voice, and that she suffered some damage or that OpenAI benefited in some way before taking it d…

i think people don't mention the existing sky voice actor, because in these kind of cases it is never the actual impersonator getting sued or found liable. in fact, if there were something problematic here, it could be entirely possible that OpenAI kept the voice actress in the dark about the intent of the performance and they would still have a legal problem.