5 ms·

There are two similar famous cases I know offhand. Probably there are more. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/

by emmp 2y ago

There are two similar famous cases I know offhand. Probably there are more. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co. Bette Middler successfully sued Ford for impersonating her likeness in a commercial. Then also: https://casetext.com/case/waits-v-frito-lay-inc https://casetext.com/case/waits-v-frito-lay-inc Tom Waits successfully sued Frito Lay for using an imitator without approval in a radio commercial. The key seems to be that if someone is famous and their voice is distinctly attributeable to them, there is a case. In both of these cases, the artists in question were also solicited first and refused.

npunt 2y ago
Also Crispin Glover's case in Back to the Future II https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/back-future-ii-a-legal-833705/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/bac...
dralley 2y ago
What if the imitator is clearly an imitator? e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvF0l8RUGQ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvF0l8RUGQ8
- gcanyon 2y ago
  That's weird -- I would think Morgan Freeman would be able to sue over that, but I Am Not An Intellectual Property Lawyer.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    I feel like that's a little different. In the cases of Midler, Waits, and Johansson, the companies involved wanted to use their voices, were turned down, and then went with an imitator to make it seem to the audience that the celebrity was actually performing. In the case of this "Morgan Freeman" video, Freeman himself is very obviously not performing: the imitator appears on screen, so it's explicitly acknowledged in the ad. But I'm not a lawyer of any sort either, so... ::shrug::
hooloovoo_zoo 2y ago
Both cases seem to have also borrowed from the artists’ songs too however. That could perhaps make a difference.
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  Bette Midler and Tom Waits didn't control their songs when they sued the companies.
  - hooloovoo_zoo 2y ago
    But it makes it more likely that the listener will associate the commercial with the artist than just using the voice.
    - deprecative 2y ago
      True to an extent. I'd argue that celebrity of a certain level would make one's voice recognizable and thus confusion can happen.
    - pseudalopex 2y ago
      The Midler v. Ford decision said her voice was distinctive. Not the song. OpenAI didn't just use a voice like Scarlett Johansson's. They used it in an AI system they wanted people to associate with AI from movies and the movie where Johansson played an AI particularly.[1][2] [1] https://blog.samaltman.com/gpt-4o https://blog.samaltman.com/gpt-4o [2] https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666 https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666
kcplate 2y ago
You would have to argue the distinctiveness of the voice (if they hadn’t already pursued her to do it). Tom Waits…that’s pretty distinct voice. Scarlett Johansson…not so much
yread 2y ago
The Tom Waits case had a payout of 2.6 million for services with fair market cost of 100k. What would it cost openai to train chatgpt using her voice? Is she also going to get a payout 26 times that? That GPU budget is starting to look inexpensive...

by emmp 2y ago

npunt 2y ago

Also Crispin Glover's case in Back to the Future II https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/back-future-ii-a-legal-833705/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/bac...

dralley 2y ago

What if the imitator is clearly an imitator? e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvF0l8RUGQ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvF0l8RUGQ8

gcanyon 2y ago
That's weird -- I would think Morgan Freeman would be able to sue over that, but I Am Not An Intellectual Property Lawyer.
- kelnos 2y ago
  I feel like that's a little different. In the cases of Midler, Waits, and Johansson, the companies involved wanted to use their voices, were turned down, and then went with an imitator to make it seem to the audience that the celebrity was actually performing. In the case of this "Morgan Freeman" video, Freeman himself is very obviously not performing: the imitator appears on screen, so it's explicitly acknowledged in the ad. But I'm not a lawyer of any sort either, so... ::shrug::

hooloovoo_zoo 2y ago

Both cases seem to have also borrowed from the artists’ songs too however. That could perhaps make a difference.

pseudalopex 2y ago
Bette Midler and Tom Waits didn't control their songs when they sued the companies.
- hooloovoo_zoo 2y ago
  But it makes it more likely that the listener will associate the commercial with the artist than just using the voice.
  - deprecative 2y ago
    True to an extent. I'd argue that celebrity of a certain level would make one's voice recognizable and thus confusion can happen.
  - pseudalopex 2y ago
    The Midler v. Ford decision said her voice was distinctive. Not the song. OpenAI didn't just use a voice like Scarlett Johansson's. They used it in an AI system they wanted people to associate with AI from movies and the movie where Johansson played an AI particularly.[1][2] [1] https://blog.samaltman.com/gpt-4o https://blog.samaltman.com/gpt-4o [2] https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666 https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666

kcplate 2y ago

You would have to argue the distinctiveness of the voice (if they hadn’t already pursued her to do it). Tom Waits…that’s pretty distinct voice. Scarlett Johansson…not so much

yread 2y ago

The Tom Waits case had a payout of 2.6 million for services with fair market cost of 100k. What would it cost openai to train chatgpt using her voice? Is she also going to get a payout 26 times that? That GPU budget is starting to look inexpensive...