5 ms·

Seems 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 wi

by hn_20591249 2y ago

Seems 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 ago
Yeeah, this was very stupid. Sigh.
catchnear4321 2y ago
only 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 ago
Or 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 ago
    If 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 ago
        What? 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 ago
        What 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.
        moralestapia 2y ago
        Sure, but you're not. You're just a look-alike and Boback O'Rama is not somebody with personality rights. Things like parody are protected under fair use, explicitly.
  - whoknowsidont 2y ago
    I love these takes that constantly pop up in tech circles. There's no way "you" (the people that engage in these tactics) believe anyone is that gullible to not see what's happening. You either believe yourselves to be exceedingly clever or everyone else has the intelligence of toddler. With the gumption some tech "leaders" display, maybe both. If you have to say "technically it's not" 5x in a row to justify a position in a social context just short-circuit your brain and go do something else.
    - romwell 2y ago
      Just to be clear, my comment was sarcastic, I agree with you and I don't think it's a great idea at all. Writing this comment mostly to say - damn, I didn't think about it this way, but I guess "either believe yourselves to be exceedingly clever or everyone else has the intelligence of toddler" is indeed the mindset. The only other alternative I can think of is "we all know it's BS, but do they have more money than us to spend on lawyers to call it out?" - which isn't much better TBH.
  - planede 2y ago
    Nitpick: it's not copyright, it's personality rights and likeness. It's a violation of it nonetheless.
- gcr 2y ago
  That’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 ago
    They 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 ago
      Probably 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 ago
    The character has a very distinct tonality. particularly the inflections and word emphasis.
- moralestapia 2y ago
  I 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 ago
    Likeness rights and copyright are different.
    - moralestapia 2y ago
      Fictional characters cannot have personality rights, for obvious reasons. That falls under copyright, trademarks, ...
      - pseudalopex 2y ago
        Actors who play fictional characters have personality rights.
        moralestapia 2y ago
        Yes, but not the fictional character. Scarlett Johansson's character in her, credited only as "voice", is a fictional character.
diego_sandoval 2y ago
It's also very easy to say that they were inspired by the concept of the movie, but the voice is different.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Sure if they hadn’t contacted her twice for permission, including 2 days before launch.
  - lyu07282 2y ago
    I 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 ago
They 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 ago
  Not 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 ago
    Creating 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 ago
      Yeah, 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 ago
        What 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.

Seems 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 ago

Yeeah, this was very stupid. Sigh.

catchnear4321 2y ago

only 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 ago

Or 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 ago
  If 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 ago
      What? 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 ago
        What 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.
        moralestapia 2y ago
        Sure, but you're not. You're just a look-alike and Boback O'Rama is not somebody with personality rights. Things like parody are protected under fair use, explicitly.
- whoknowsidont 2y ago
  I love these takes that constantly pop up in tech circles. There's no way "you" (the people that engage in these tactics) believe anyone is that gullible to not see what's happening. You either believe yourselves to be exceedingly clever or everyone else has the intelligence of toddler. With the gumption some tech "leaders" display, maybe both. If you have to say "technically it's not" 5x in a row to justify a position in a social context just short-circuit your brain and go do something else.
  - romwell 2y ago
    Just to be clear, my comment was sarcastic, I agree with you and I don't think it's a great idea at all. Writing this comment mostly to say - damn, I didn't think about it this way, but I guess "either believe yourselves to be exceedingly clever or everyone else has the intelligence of toddler" is indeed the mindset. The only other alternative I can think of is "we all know it's BS, but do they have more money than us to spend on lawyers to call it out?" - which isn't much better TBH.
- planede 2y ago
  Nitpick: it's not copyright, it's personality rights and likeness. It's a violation of it nonetheless.
gcr 2y ago
That’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 ago
  They 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 ago
    Probably 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 ago
  The character has a very distinct tonality. particularly the inflections and word emphasis.
moralestapia 2y ago
I 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 ago
  Likeness rights and copyright are different.
  - moralestapia 2y ago
    Fictional characters cannot have personality rights, for obvious reasons. That falls under copyright, trademarks, ...
    - pseudalopex 2y ago
      Actors who play fictional characters have personality rights.
      - moralestapia 2y ago
        Yes, but not the fictional character. Scarlett Johansson's character in her, credited only as "voice", is a fictional character.

diego_sandoval 2y ago

It's also very easy to say that they were inspired by the concept of the movie, but the voice is different.

llamaimperative 2y ago
Sure if they hadn’t contacted her twice for permission, including 2 days before launch.
- lyu07282 2y ago
  I 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 ago

They 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 ago
Not 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 ago
  Creating 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 ago
    Yeah, 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 ago
      What 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.