3 ms·

> And now we have OpenAI showing that they have no qualms about deep-faking a voice actor if they don't get the proper rights. No, that isn't established. The

> And now we have OpenAI showing that they have no qualms about deep-faking a voice actor if they don't get the proper rights. No, that isn't established. They are claiming they used a different actress, so no deep-faking involved. If the actress turns out to not be real, then yes Sam A is guilty of lying and some pretty gross behavior. If it turns out to be true though, what they did is a bit scummy, but not dishonest ~and not illegal~, unless you believe that people who sound similar to Scarlett Johansson don't have the same rights to their voice as Johansson does to hers. Edit: It may actually be illegal given the intent. There is court precedent on this

kevingadd 2y ago
You may be surprised to learn that the latter case is still of questionable legality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
- freedomben 2y ago
  Well I'll be damned. Thank you!
saurik 2y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40421759 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40421759 <not2b> The answer, based on two different court precedents (Bette Midler, Tom Waits), is that the company can't do that. Companies cannot hire soundalike people to advertise their products after the person with a distinctive voice they really wanted declined. Doesn't matter if they hired a soundalike and used her voice.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think that is different than deepfaking something
  - appplication 2y ago
    It’s a good ol fashioned shallowfake
  - tivert 2y ago
    > I think that is different than deepfaking something I don't understand how it's different in any material way.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I think it says something different about intent, rights, and expectations if someone engineers a voice model based on someone's copyright work, versus just finding another real human who's voice is close enough to what you want.
      - tivert 2y ago
        I suppose it could be materially different, in that it's even worse than just hiring a soundalike. And I don't think the issue here is so much copyright as it is likeness rights.
helsinkiandrew 2y ago
> what they did is a bit scummy, but not dishonest and not illegal Imitating someones voice doesn't break copyright but there have been several cases against companies that have used sound alikes in (for example) commercials If Altmans use of "Her" in a tweet and the previous communication between OpenAI and Scarlett Johansson could persuade a judge that it wasn't a random chance they chose an actor that sounded like her but had set out to imitate her voice deliberately she might have a strong case for damages For example Tom Waits was awarded $2.6M when Frito-Lay used an actor that sounded like him in an ad: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_case?case=15989138338581244750&q=Waits%20v.%20Frito-Lay,%20Inc.,&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_case?case=1598913833858...
trffint 2y ago
> If it turns out to be true though, what they did is a bit scummy, but not dishonest ~and not illegal~, unless you believe that people who sound similar to Scarlett Johansson don't have the same rights to their voice as Johansson does to hers. I am so sick of reading this shallow dismissal. It’s a classic bad faith argument where the offender tries to undermine the victims rights by claiming: “in fact I’m really just defending this other persons rights!” It’s an intentionally obtuse strawman to say “people who sound similar to”. It’s more than just Johansson’s voice. It’s meant to evoke the character she played in a film. A performance that she developed and provided for a role for a project she worked on. You may be unable or unwilling to appreciate that as work, or even hard work, but it is, and this skeezy company knows it too because they were so taken by that performance that they wanted to use it in their product. I’ll frame it in a way people on this site can understand. If you steal my code, but have some third party copy it while changing function and variable names(unfortunately exactly what these llms are also doing) and I complain about you doing that, and you say “O, so I guess anyone who writes python doesn’t have the same rights to their own work as you now?!”
- beeboop 2y ago
  SJ doesn’t own the rights to the character. She can’t legally go play Black Widow for another studio just because she was the actor
  - trffint 2y ago
    I was unaware that you had insider knowledge of Johansson's contract. Where can I read the sources that supports this assertion? I suppose in the absence of Johansson's rights to the character she developed means that this unethical megacorp has defacto rights to that character? Absurd.
- freedomben 2y ago
  > I am so sick of reading this shallow dismissal. > It’s a classic bad faith argument where the offender tries to undermine the victims rights by claiming: “in fact I’m really just defending this other persons rights!” > It’s an intentionally obtuse strawman to say “people who sound similar to”. > I’ll frame it in a way people on this site can understand. Perhaps you wouldn't be so sick of it if you attempted to actually understand the argument. The irony in dismissing this as a "shallow dismissal" is you're actually making a shallow dismissal yourself. Your condescending attitude and feeling that you're so much smarter than everybody else is also (I suspect) a hindrance to actually trying to understand what someone with a different viewpoint than yours might possibly be thinking. This particular case is pretty clear cut: Sam A liked Johansson's voice and either found an actress to mimic it, or he stole it. But when you are creating policy and law, you have to get at the underlying principles, and be able to apply that equally to multiple situations, many of which will be far less clear cut than this one. I.e. laws don't (or shouldn't) say "Sam A can't imitate Scarlet Johannson's likeness," they have to provide some sort of standard and/or benchmark that defines the underlying principle. Is it possible that you are talking about a specific case, while the people you accuse of shallow dismissals are actually going a lot deeper than you and talking about the greater (and much harder to nail down) principles? This particular case is boring. It's mostly just gossip mixed with cult of personality. Far, far more interesting to me is the philosophy and principles behind it. Welcome to HN by the way! (and I mean that seriously. We've obviously disagreed here, but that's what makes this site great IMHO. I do hope that you come to have a little more humility and respect for others though, otherwise you're likely to miss the real interesting deep discussions I love this site for).
slowmovintarget 2y ago
Open AI is already dealing with Microsoft, Microsoft already had a working relationship with Jen Taylor (Cortana), why not contract her and dodge the infringement and creepiness of stealing from Her?

kevingadd 2y ago

You may be surprised to learn that the latter case is still of questionable legality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

freedomben 2y ago
Well I'll be damned. Thank you!

saurik 2y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40421759 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40421759 <not2b> The answer, based on two different court precedents (Bette Midler, Tom Waits), is that the company can't do that. Companies cannot hire soundalike people to advertise their products after the person with a distinctive voice they really wanted declined. Doesn't matter if they hired a soundalike and used her voice.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I think that is different than deepfaking something
- appplication 2y ago
  It’s a good ol fashioned shallowfake
- tivert 2y ago
  > I think that is different than deepfaking something I don't understand how it's different in any material way.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think it says something different about intent, rights, and expectations if someone engineers a voice model based on someone's copyright work, versus just finding another real human who's voice is close enough to what you want.
    - tivert 2y ago
      I suppose it could be materially different, in that it's even worse than just hiring a soundalike. And I don't think the issue here is so much copyright as it is likeness rights.

helsinkiandrew 2y ago

> what they did is a bit scummy, but not dishonest and not illegal Imitating someones voice doesn't break copyright but there have been several cases against companies that have used sound alikes in (for example) commercials If Altmans use of "Her" in a tweet and the previous communication between OpenAI and Scarlett Johansson could persuade a judge that it wasn't a random chance they chose an actor that sounded like her but had set out to imitate her voice deliberately she might have a strong case for damages For example Tom Waits was awarded $2.6M when Frito-Lay used an actor that sounded like him in an ad: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_case?case=15989138338581244750&q=Waits%20v.%20Frito-Lay,%20Inc.,&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_case?case=1598913833858...

trffint 2y ago

> If it turns out to be true though, what they did is a bit scummy, but not dishonest ~and not illegal~, unless you believe that people who sound similar to Scarlett Johansson don't have the same rights to their voice as Johansson does to hers. I am so sick of reading this shallow dismissal. It’s a classic bad faith argument where the offender tries to undermine the victims rights by claiming: “in fact I’m really just defending this other persons rights!” It’s an intentionally obtuse strawman to say “people who sound similar to”. It’s more than just Johansson’s voice. It’s meant to evoke the character she played in a film. A performance that she developed and provided for a role for a project she worked on. You may be unable or unwilling to appreciate that as work, or even hard work, but it is, and this skeezy company knows it too because they were so taken by that performance that they wanted to use it in their product. I’ll frame it in a way people on this site can understand. If you steal my code, but have some third party copy it while changing function and variable names(unfortunately exactly what these llms are also doing) and I complain about you doing that, and you say “O, so I guess anyone who writes python doesn’t have the same rights to their own work as you now?!”

beeboop 2y ago
SJ doesn’t own the rights to the character. She can’t legally go play Black Widow for another studio just because she was the actor
- trffint 2y ago
  I was unaware that you had insider knowledge of Johansson's contract. Where can I read the sources that supports this assertion? I suppose in the absence of Johansson's rights to the character she developed means that this unethical megacorp has defacto rights to that character? Absurd.
freedomben 2y ago
> I am so sick of reading this shallow dismissal. > It’s a classic bad faith argument where the offender tries to undermine the victims rights by claiming: “in fact I’m really just defending this other persons rights!” > It’s an intentionally obtuse strawman to say “people who sound similar to”. > I’ll frame it in a way people on this site can understand. Perhaps you wouldn't be so sick of it if you attempted to actually understand the argument. The irony in dismissing this as a "shallow dismissal" is you're actually making a shallow dismissal yourself. Your condescending attitude and feeling that you're so much smarter than everybody else is also (I suspect) a hindrance to actually trying to understand what someone with a different viewpoint than yours might possibly be thinking. This particular case is pretty clear cut: Sam A liked Johansson's voice and either found an actress to mimic it, or he stole it. But when you are creating policy and law, you have to get at the underlying principles, and be able to apply that equally to multiple situations, many of which will be far less clear cut than this one. I.e. laws don't (or shouldn't) say "Sam A can't imitate Scarlet Johannson's likeness," they have to provide some sort of standard and/or benchmark that defines the underlying principle. Is it possible that you are talking about a specific case, while the people you accuse of shallow dismissals are actually going a lot deeper than you and talking about the greater (and much harder to nail down) principles? This particular case is boring. It's mostly just gossip mixed with cult of personality. Far, far more interesting to me is the philosophy and principles behind it. Welcome to HN by the way! (and I mean that seriously. We've obviously disagreed here, but that's what makes this site great IMHO. I do hope that you come to have a little more humility and respect for others though, otherwise you're likely to miss the real interesting deep discussions I love this site for).

slowmovintarget 2y ago

Open AI is already dealing with Microsoft, Microsoft already had a working relationship with Jen Taylor (Cortana), why not contract her and dodge the infringement and creepiness of stealing from Her?