6 ms·

It probably is illegal in CA: https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1123&context=umblr https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c

It 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 ago
I'd be surprised if it was legal anywhere in the US, but this just puts the final nail into Sky's coffin.
charlieyu1 2y ago
But why? Sounds like a violation to the rights of the sound actor
- whoknowsidont 2y ago
  Because 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 ago
    Sounds 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.
    - jahewson 2y ago
      Not necessarily, because this would be a civil matter, the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence - it’s glaring obvious that this voice is emulating the movie Her and I suspect it wouldn’t be hard to convince a jury.
  - janalsncm 2y ago
    What OpenAI did here is beyond the pale. This is open and shut for me based off of the actions surrounding the voice training. I think a lot of people are wondering about a situation (which clearly doesn’t apply here) in which someone was falsely accused of impersonation based on an accidental similarity. I have more sympathy for that. But that’s giving OpenAI far more than just the benefit of the doubt: there is no doubt in this case.
    - sneak 2y ago
      I think "beyond the pale" is a bit hyperbolic. The voice actor has publicity rights, too.
  - charlieyu1 2y ago
    I guess the Trump lookalike satire guy would not want to go to California then
    - actionfromafar 2y ago
      Ah, so OpenAI does satire. That explains a lot.
- csomar 2y ago
  I am guessing it's because you are trying to sell the voice as "that" actor voice. I guess if the other voice become popular on its own right (a celebrity) then there is a case to be made.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  Did you read the statement? They approached Scarlett twice, including two days before launch. Sam even said himself that Sky sounds like 'HER'. This isn't actually complicated at all. OpenAI robbed her likeness against her express will.

romwell 2y ago

I'd be surprised if it was legal anywhere in the US, but this just puts the final nail into Sky's coffin.

charlieyu1 2y ago

But why? Sounds like a violation to the rights of the sound actor

whoknowsidont 2y ago
Because 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 ago
  Sounds 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.
  - jahewson 2y ago
    Not necessarily, because this would be a civil matter, the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence - it’s glaring obvious that this voice is emulating the movie Her and I suspect it wouldn’t be hard to convince a jury.
- janalsncm 2y ago
  What OpenAI did here is beyond the pale. This is open and shut for me based off of the actions surrounding the voice training. I think a lot of people are wondering about a situation (which clearly doesn’t apply here) in which someone was falsely accused of impersonation based on an accidental similarity. I have more sympathy for that. But that’s giving OpenAI far more than just the benefit of the doubt: there is no doubt in this case.
  - sneak 2y ago
    I think "beyond the pale" is a bit hyperbolic. The voice actor has publicity rights, too.
- charlieyu1 2y ago
  I guess the Trump lookalike satire guy would not want to go to California then
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    Ah, so OpenAI does satire. That explains a lot.
csomar 2y ago
I am guessing it's because you are trying to sell the voice as "that" actor voice. I guess if the other voice become popular on its own right (a celebrity) then there is a case to be made.
mandmandam 2y ago
Did you read the statement? They approached Scarlett twice, including two days before launch. Sam even said himself that Sky sounds like 'HER'. This isn't actually complicated at all. OpenAI robbed her likeness against her express will.