4 ms·

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 wo

by MBCook 2y ago

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.

ml-anon 2y ago
Scarlett Johansson made Disney cave. She’s going to absolutely destroy this band of grifters.
- MBCook 2y ago
  Not only that, I don’t think Disney wants this precedent. They may also want to get back on her good side. Either way given they own a number of movies with her in starring roles I wouldn’t be surprised if they were happy to help in her lawsuit with the legal fees. Hell they may sue on their own or join as another damaged party.
  - ml-anon 2y ago
    I’m sure they are salivating at the thought of discovery forcing OAI to crack open their datasets so they can put a dollar amount to every piece of infringing material in there.
threatofrain 2y ago
I'm not sure she can do much since OpenAI withdrew so quickly. What damages are there?
- callalex 2y ago
  The way USA courts are set up, setting precedent and assessing damages are two distinct things. I agree that the precedent she would be targeting wouldn’t be all that financially rewarding but that’s not the only thing that motivates humans.
- system2 2y ago
  Sky voice is still there.
- DevX101 2y ago
  The demo OpenAI was a massive marketing campaign for GPT-4o and led to the largest increases in revenue for their mobile app. The voice was a large part of why this release was a hit. The demo is still on youtube with 4M views. She has a great case for financial remuneration even if they haven't yet launched the voice feature.
- MBCook 2y ago
  Withdrew too quickly? They didn’t come to an agreement to use her voice, they used her voice. And they obviously knew it was a problem because they went back to her like the night before trying to get her approval again. The correct thing to do was NOT use her voice. You don’t get to steal something, get all the benefit from it (the press coverage), and then say “oops never mind it was just a few hours you can’t sue us”. Why don’t we try selling tickets to watch a Disney movie “just one time” and see how well that goes. I don’t think Disney’s lawyers will look at it and say “oh well they decided not to do it again.“
  - 8note 2y ago
    They make no representation that it is her voice, and there's a really good chance that they separately made a voice that sounds similar enough to where if they could tack her name to it, it'd be good for advertising, but otherwise isn't her voice. Voices are really hard for people to distinguish as being a certain person without priming, so really she's doing for free the advertising they were hoping she'd do for pay
    - thih9 2y ago
      > there's a really good chance that they separately made a voice that sounds similar enough to where if they could tack her name to it, it'd be good for advertising, but otherwise isn't her voice. There’s also a really good chance this is in some way a deepfake. Would be interesting to see this get examined by courts.
    - MBCook 2y ago
      I don’t know if it’s actually her voice. At this point I wouldn’t put it past them. But if they concocted a fake voice to sound as much like her as possible, that’s not really better. Altman’s tweet, combined with previous statements Her is his favorite movie, and trying to secure rights twice looks really really damning. > so really she's doing for free the advertising they were hoping she'd do for pay They didn’t want her to advertise for them. They wanted to use her voice. Do you not see a difference?
option 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mepiethree 2y ago
  I think for most people the answer is “worse”.
  - wilg 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - DavidPiper 2y ago
      Not OP, or the replier, but I think the longer answer here is that if Scarlett Johansson <insert any wealthy and/or popular figure> can't win a lawsuit against a company that has effectively: (1) Used content she has created (vocal lines) in order to train a generative AI with the ability to create more of that content (vocal lines), without permission or payment, let alone acknowledgement (2) In doing so removed the scarcity of the content she provides (Generative AI is effectively unlimited in the lines it can produce once effectively trained) Then no smaller time actor, voice actor, artist, musician, etc, is likely to have any chance defending themselves against the theft of their work for AI purposes. And, with that precedent set, the legal and financial landscape of art and creativity will have changed in a way that discourages anybody from creating original works for financial gain, because we've systematised the creation of original and derivative works with no legal or financial ramifications.
      - wilg 2y ago
        Maybe, but I don't think it's likely that they used any actual copyrighted material of her voice. It's not illegal to want one voice actor to play a role (or record voice data), then get a different, somewhat (but not actually very) similar sounding voice actor to do it instead.

by MBCook 2y ago

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.

ml-anon 2y ago

Scarlett Johansson made Disney cave. She’s going to absolutely destroy this band of grifters.

MBCook 2y ago
Not only that, I don’t think Disney wants this precedent. They may also want to get back on her good side. Either way given they own a number of movies with her in starring roles I wouldn’t be surprised if they were happy to help in her lawsuit with the legal fees. Hell they may sue on their own or join as another damaged party.
- ml-anon 2y ago
  I’m sure they are salivating at the thought of discovery forcing OAI to crack open their datasets so they can put a dollar amount to every piece of infringing material in there.

threatofrain 2y ago

I'm not sure she can do much since OpenAI withdrew so quickly. What damages are there?

callalex 2y ago
The way USA courts are set up, setting precedent and assessing damages are two distinct things. I agree that the precedent she would be targeting wouldn’t be all that financially rewarding but that’s not the only thing that motivates humans.
system2 2y ago
Sky voice is still there.
DevX101 2y ago
The demo OpenAI was a massive marketing campaign for GPT-4o and led to the largest increases in revenue for their mobile app. The voice was a large part of why this release was a hit. The demo is still on youtube with 4M views. She has a great case for financial remuneration even if they haven't yet launched the voice feature.
MBCook 2y ago
Withdrew too quickly? They didn’t come to an agreement to use her voice, they used her voice. And they obviously knew it was a problem because they went back to her like the night before trying to get her approval again. The correct thing to do was NOT use her voice. You don’t get to steal something, get all the benefit from it (the press coverage), and then say “oops never mind it was just a few hours you can’t sue us”. Why don’t we try selling tickets to watch a Disney movie “just one time” and see how well that goes. I don’t think Disney’s lawyers will look at it and say “oh well they decided not to do it again.“
- 8note 2y ago
  They make no representation that it is her voice, and there's a really good chance that they separately made a voice that sounds similar enough to where if they could tack her name to it, it'd be good for advertising, but otherwise isn't her voice. Voices are really hard for people to distinguish as being a certain person without priming, so really she's doing for free the advertising they were hoping she'd do for pay
  - thih9 2y ago
    > there's a really good chance that they separately made a voice that sounds similar enough to where if they could tack her name to it, it'd be good for advertising, but otherwise isn't her voice. There’s also a really good chance this is in some way a deepfake. Would be interesting to see this get examined by courts.
  - MBCook 2y ago
    I don’t know if it’s actually her voice. At this point I wouldn’t put it past them. But if they concocted a fake voice to sound as much like her as possible, that’s not really better. Altman’s tweet, combined with previous statements Her is his favorite movie, and trying to secure rights twice looks really really damning. > so really she's doing for free the advertising they were hoping she'd do for pay They didn’t want her to advertise for them. They wanted to use her voice. Do you not see a difference?

option 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mepiethree 2y ago
I think for most people the answer is “worse”.
- wilg 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - DavidPiper 2y ago
    Not OP, or the replier, but I think the longer answer here is that if Scarlett Johansson <insert any wealthy and/or popular figure> can't win a lawsuit against a company that has effectively: (1) Used content she has created (vocal lines) in order to train a generative AI with the ability to create more of that content (vocal lines), without permission or payment, let alone acknowledgement (2) In doing so removed the scarcity of the content she provides (Generative AI is effectively unlimited in the lines it can produce once effectively trained) Then no smaller time actor, voice actor, artist, musician, etc, is likely to have any chance defending themselves against the theft of their work for AI purposes. And, with that precedent set, the legal and financial landscape of art and creativity will have changed in a way that discourages anybody from creating original works for financial gain, because we've systematised the creation of original and derivative works with no legal or financial ramifications.
    - wilg 2y ago
      Maybe, but I don't think it's likely that they used any actual copyrighted material of her voice. It's not illegal to want one voice actor to play a role (or record voice data), then get a different, somewhat (but not actually very) similar sounding voice actor to do it instead.