7 ms·
OpenAI claimed they hired a different professional actor who performed using her own voice [1]. If so, I suspect they’ll be okay in a court of law — having a v
by signal11 2y ago
OpenAI claimed they hired a different professional actor who performed using her own voice [1].
If so, I suspect they’ll be okay in a court of law — having a voice similar to a celebrity isn’t illegal.
It’ll likely cheese off actors and performers though.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/05/20/openai-says-its-pulling-chatgpt-voice-sky-that-sounds-like-scarlett-johansson/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/05/20/openai-sa...
- hn_20591249 2y agoSeems like sama may have put a big hole in that argument when he tweeted "her", now it is very easy to say that they knowingly cloned ScarJo's likeness. When will tech leaders learn to stop tweeting.
- crimsoneer 2y agoYeeah, this was very stupid. Sigh.
- catchnear4321 2y agoonly when they can get a bigger fix from something else. it takes more than money to fuel these types, and they would have far better minders and bumpers if the downside outweighed the upside. they aren’t stupid, just addicted. musk was addict smart, owned up to his proclivities and bought the cartel.
- chipweinberger 2y agoOr perhaps they cloned a character's likeness? Is there a distinction? Are they trying to make it sound like Her, or SJ? Or just trying to go for a similar style? i.e. making artistic choices in designing their product Note: I've never watched the movie.
- romwell 2y ago>Is there a distinction? Yes, that would be a copyright violation on top of everything else. Great idea though! I'm going to start selling Keanu Reeves T-Shirts using this little trick. See, I'm not using Keanu's likeness if I don't label it as Keanu. I'm just going to write Neo in a Tweet, and then say I'm just cloning Neo's likeness. Neo is not a real person, so Keanu can't sue me! Bwahahaha
- moralestapia 2y agoIf you find a guy that looks identical to him, however ...
- romwell 2y ago>If you find a guy that looks identical to him, however ... ...it wouldn't make any difference. A Barack Obama figurine is a Barack Obama figurine, no matter how much you say that it's actually a figurine of Boback O'Rama, a random person that coincidentally looks identically to the former US President.
- moralestapia 2y agoWhat? That situation would be completely legal. Come on.
- romwell 2y ago>What? California Civil Code Section 3344(a) states: Any person who knowingly uses another’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person’s prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.
- moralestapia 2y agoWhat are you supposed to do if you look like a famous celebrity? Die? Get real.
- romwell 2y ago>What are you supposed to do if you look like a famous celebrity? Not make a living posing for pictures without consent of the said celebrity? Re: "get real" - the law is pretty real.
- gcr 2y agoThat’s a weaksauce argument IMO. The character was played by SJ. Depictions of this character necessarily have to be depictions of the voice actress. Your argument may be stronger if OpenAI said something like “the movie studio owns the rights to this character’s likeness, so we approached them,” but it’s not clear they attempted that.
- moralestapia 2y agoThey didn't approach her, they approached her agent, which should've the point of contact for either case. As to whether she owns the rights of that performance or somebody else, we'd have to read the contract; most likely she doesn't, though.
- mrbungie 2y agoProbably anyone but her inner circle can "approach her" directly. I would expect any other kind of connection to be made through her agent.
- chipweinberger 2y agoThe character has a very distinct tonality. particularly the inflections and word emphasis.
- moralestapia 2y agoI honestly don't think Scarlett (the person, not her "her" character) has anything to favor their case, aside from the public's sympathy. She may have something only if it turns out that the training set for that voice is composed of some recordings of her (the person, not the movie), which I highly doubt and is, unfortunately, extremely hard to prove. Even that wouldn't be much, though, as it could be ruled a derivative work, or something akin to any celebrity impersonator. Those guys can even advertise themselves using the actual name of the celebrities involved and it's allowed. Me personally, I hope she takes them to court anyway, as it will be an interesting trial to follow. An interesting facet is, copyright law goes to the substance of the copyrighted work; in this case, because of the peculiarities of her character in "her", she is pretty much only voice, I wonder if that make things look different to the eyes of a judge.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pseudalopex 2y agoLikeness rights and copyright are different.
- moralestapia 2y agoFictional characters cannot have personality rights, for obvious reasons. That falls under copyright, trademarks, ...
- pseudalopex 2y agoActors who play fictional characters have personality rights.
- moralestapia 2y agoYes, but not the fictional character. Scarlett Johansson's character in her, credited only as "voice", is a fictional character.
- diego_sandoval 2y agoIt's also very easy to say that they were inspired by the concept of the movie, but the voice is different.
- llamaimperative 2y agoSure if they hadn’t contacted her twice for permission, including 2 days before launch.
- lyu07282 2y agoI heard the voice before hearing this news and didn't recognize her, but it's crazy if they really cloned her voice without her permission. Even worse somehow since they did such a bad job at it.
- apantel 2y agoThey can say they had a certain thing in mind, which was to produce something like ‘Her’, and obviously Scarjo would have sold it home for them if she participated. But in lieu of the fact that she didn’t, they still went out and created what they had in mind, which was something LIKE ‘Her’. That doesn’t sound illegal.
- jahewson 2y agoNot illegal, because this would be a civil case. But they’re on thin ice because there’s a big difference between “creating something like Her” and “creating something like Scarlet Johansson’s performance in Her”.
- apantel 2y agoCreating something like Her is creating something like Scarlet Johansson’s performance of her. The whole point is to hit the same note, which is a voice and an aesthetic and a sensibility. That’s the point! She wasn’t willing to do it. If they hit the same note without training on her voice, then I think that’s fair game.
- a_wild_dandan 2y agoYeah, influential people shouldn't get to functionally own a "likeness." It's not a fingerprint. An actor shouldn't credibly worry about getting work because a rich/famous doppelganger exists (which may threaten clientele). Explicit brand reference? Bad. Circumstantial insinuation? Let it go.
- plasticchris 2y agoWhat else does a famous actor have but a likeness? What if their likeness is appropriated to support a cause they disagree with, or a job they declined for moral or ethical reasons? The public will still associate them first and they will bear the consequences.
- ocdtrekkie 2y agoI mean, unless an investigation can find any criteria used to select this particular actress like "sounds like Scarlett" in an email somewhere, or you know, the head idiot intentionally and publicly posting the title of a movie starring the actress in relation to the soundalike's voice work.
- zone411 2y agoIt probably is illegal in CA: https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1123&context=umblr https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... "when voice is sufficient indicia of a celebrity's identity, the right of publicity protects against its imitation for commercial purposes without the celebrity's consent."
- romwell 2y agoI'd be surprised if it was legal anywhere in the US, but this just puts the final nail into Sky's coffin.
- charlieyu1 2y agoBut why? Sounds like a violation to the rights of the sound actor
- whoknowsidont 2y agoBecause it's meant to give the _appearance_ or _perception_ that a celebrity is involved. Their actions demonstrate they were both highly interested and had the expectation that the partnership was going to work out, with the express purpose of using the celebrity's identity for their own commercial purposes. If they had just screened a bunch of voice actors and chosen the same one no one would care (legally or otherwise).
- whynotminot 2y agoSounds like one of those situations you'd have to prove intent. (and given the timeline ScarJo laid out in her Twitter feed, I'd be inclined to vote to convict at the present moment)
- sangnoir 2y ago> Sounds like one of those situations you'd have to prove intent. The discovery process may help figuring the intent - especially any internal communication before and after the two(!) failed attempts to get her sign-off, as well as any notes shared with the people responsible for casting.
- rockemsockem 2y agoIt's almost certainly not legal exactly because of the surrounding context of openai trying to hire her along with the "her" tweet. There's not a lot of precedent around voice impersonation, but there is for a very, very similar case against Ford https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
- signal11 2y agoAmazing case law, thank you! I suspect OpenAI have just realised this, hence the walking back of the “Sky” voice.
- meat_machine 2y agoI am not a lawyer, but other potentially relevant cases: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/waits-v-frito-lay-inc https://www.quimbee.com/cases/waits-v-frito-lay-inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_v._Samsung_Electronics_America,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_v._Samsung_Electronics_A....
- JeremyNT 2y agoWhether or not what they've done is currently technically illegal, they're priming the public to be pissed off at them. Making enemies of beloved figures from the broader culture is likely to not make OpenAI many friends. OpenAI has gone the "it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission" route, and it seemed like they might get away with that, but if this results in a lot more stories like this they'll risk running afoul of public opinion and future legislation turning sharply against them.
- klyrs 2y agoProblem is, they asked for permission, showing their hand multiple times. Can I say, I'm somewhat relieved to learn that Sam Altman isn't an evil genius.