3 ms·

No it's not put to rest, because if they used a different voice actress for the model then it's a legitimate move. Agreed that it's obvious that (assuming ther

No it's not put to rest, because if they used a different voice actress for the model then it's a legitimate move. Agreed that it's obvious that (assuming there is another voice actress) they found one as close to Scarlett Johansson as possible. That's a dirt bag move. But ~it's not illegal and~ it's not copying if they used a real, different actress. It's Scarlett Johansson's right to refuse her own voice, but it's not her right to prevent anyone else from agreeing. That voice actress that they used has just as much right to her voice as Scarlett Johansson does to hers. Why should the voice actress not be allowed to work just because she sounds like Johansson? Why shouldn't Johansson be disallowed to work because she sounds like the unnamed voice actress? Edit: It may indeed be illegal. Thank you child comments

qarl 2y ago
> No it's not put to rest, because if they used a different voice actress for the model then it's a legitimate move. That is simply untrue. Check out the Midler-Ford case, the Tom Waits case as just two examples. If the intent is to mimic the character, you're in trouble. OpenAI is trying to claim they weren't mimicking Samatha, but you'd have to be a fool to believe that, given the other evidence.
- freedomben 2y ago
  Very interesting, thank you! Given that I agree it's likely not legal. There is definitely plenty of evidence that they wanted Johansson's voice. I'm quite torn on whether this is how it ought to be though. If the burden of proof is on showing intent, then I think it's a good balance. If it shifts to just "chance of confusion" like many trademark cases have, that seems pretty unfair to average people and stacked in favor of the rich and famous. Refs for others: [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co [2]: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-09-me-238-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-09-me-238-st... [3]: https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/22/tech/openai-scarlett-johansson-lawsuit-sam-altman/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/22/tech/openai-scarlett-johansso...
Natfan 2y ago
advertising agencies have been slapped on the wrist for using "soundalikes": https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/case-studies/advertising-agencys-use-sound-alike-infringes-singers-right-publicity https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/case-studies/adver... https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likeness-another https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likeness-anot... https://www.tramatm.com/blog/category/other/sound-alikes-5-high-profile-trademark-disputes-involving-phonetic-similarity https://www.tramatm.com/blog/category/other/sound-alikes-5-h...
- slowmovintarget 2y ago
  Right, and it was just a slap on the wrist for them. I'm betting OpenAI's bet was that they get the buzz and can take the hit from the lawsuit without breaking a sweat. That is, the expected cost of the marketing stunt factored in the cost of the resulting lawsuits and expected settlement and was signed-off on as acceptable.
BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
> No it's not put to rest > That's a dirt bag move. But ~it's not illegal Experience tells me that everyone loves when someone chooses what the law allows over morality. Can we acknowledge that immoral acts are often not illegal and illegal acts are often not immoral and then say that it's put to rest that it's obviously and definitely a dirt bag move?
- freedomben 2y ago
  > Can we acknowledge that immoral acts are often not illegal and illegal acts are often not immoral and then say that it's put to rest that it's obviously and definitely a dirt bag move? Absolutely! No disagreement from me there. I would also add that (to me personally) companies choosing what the law allows over what is moral doesn't impress me at all, in fact it lowers (sometimes drastically) my opinion of the company. When companies choose the moral thing over not-illegal-but-gross, especially when it costs them money, it raises them a huge deal in my book. I try to celebrate those decisions when I see them.

qarl 2y ago

> No it's not put to rest, because if they used a different voice actress for the model then it's a legitimate move. That is simply untrue. Check out the Midler-Ford case, the Tom Waits case as just two examples. If the intent is to mimic the character, you're in trouble. OpenAI is trying to claim they weren't mimicking Samatha, but you'd have to be a fool to believe that, given the other evidence.

freedomben 2y ago
Very interesting, thank you! Given that I agree it's likely not legal. There is definitely plenty of evidence that they wanted Johansson's voice. I'm quite torn on whether this is how it ought to be though. If the burden of proof is on showing intent, then I think it's a good balance. If it shifts to just "chance of confusion" like many trademark cases have, that seems pretty unfair to average people and stacked in favor of the rich and famous. Refs for others: [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co [2]: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-09-me-238-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-09-me-238-st... [3]: https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/22/tech/openai-scarlett-johansson-lawsuit-sam-altman/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/22/tech/openai-scarlett-johansso...

Natfan 2y ago

advertising agencies have been slapped on the wrist for using "soundalikes": https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/case-studies/advertising-agencys-use-sound-alike-infringes-singers-right-publicity https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/case-studies/adver... https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likeness-another https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likeness-anot... https://www.tramatm.com/blog/category/other/sound-alikes-5-high-profile-trademark-disputes-involving-phonetic-similarity https://www.tramatm.com/blog/category/other/sound-alikes-5-h...

slowmovintarget 2y ago
Right, and it was just a slap on the wrist for them. I'm betting OpenAI's bet was that they get the buzz and can take the hit from the lawsuit without breaking a sweat. That is, the expected cost of the marketing stunt factored in the cost of the resulting lawsuits and expected settlement and was signed-off on as acceptable.

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago

> No it's not put to rest > That's a dirt bag move. But ~it's not illegal Experience tells me that everyone loves when someone chooses what the law allows over morality. Can we acknowledge that immoral acts are often not illegal and illegal acts are often not immoral and then say that it's put to rest that it's obviously and definitely a dirt bag move?

freedomben 2y ago
> Can we acknowledge that immoral acts are often not illegal and illegal acts are often not immoral and then say that it's put to rest that it's obviously and definitely a dirt bag move? Absolutely! No disagreement from me there. I would also add that (to me personally) companies choosing what the law allows over what is moral doesn't impress me at all, in fact it lowers (sometimes drastically) my opinion of the company. When companies choose the moral thing over not-illegal-but-gross, especially when it costs them money, it raises them a huge deal in my book. I try to celebrate those decisions when I see them.