3 ms·

If famous actors could sue over the use of a less-famous actor that sounds just like them, what's to stop less-famous actors from suing over the use of a famous

by yorwba 2y ago

If famous actors could sue over the use of a less-famous actor that sounds just like them, what's to stop less-famous actors from suing over the use of a famous actor who sounds just like them in big-budget movies? ... and that's when you discover that "unique voice" is a one-in-a-million thing and thousands of people have the same voice, all asking for their payout.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> what's to stop less-famous actors from suing over the use of a famous actor who sounds just like them in big-budget movies? Not having idiots (or ChatGPT) for judges.
- tivert 2y ago
  > Not having idiots (or ChatGPT) for judges. Always the Achilles heel of software engineers' (not so) clever legal strategies.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  That's a common retort on HN but it's information free. Judges are at least theoretically and often in practice bound to follow both written law and logic, even if it yields apparently silly outcomes. The prevalence of openly political judgements in the news makes it seem like this isn't the case, but those judgements are newsworthy exactly because they are shocking and outrageous. If voices being similar to each other is found to be grounds for a successful tort action then it'd establish a legal precedent, and it's very unlikely that precedent would be interpreted as "whoever the judge heard of first wins".
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > it's very unlikely that precedent would be interpreted as "whoever the judge heard of first wins" No, it's whoever's voice is famous. The voice per se isn't valuable, its fame is. Personality rights are precedented [1]. > voices being similar to each other is found to be grounds for a successful tort action then it'd establish a legal precedent It's not about similarity. It's about property. Johansson developed her voice into a valuable asset. It's valuable because it's Scarlet Johansson's voice. Tweeting Her explicitly tied it to Johansson, even if that wasn't the case up to that point. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      Yeah, but it's not Scarlett Johansson's voice and therefore not her property. It's one that sounds similar, but is different, and thus belongs to the true voice actress.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > it's not Scarlett Johansson's voice and therefore not her property It's not her voice. But it may have been intended to sound like her voice. (I believe this less than twenty-four hours ago, but I'm hesitant to grant Altman the benefit of doubt.) If it were her voice, would you agree that seems distasteful? > one that sounds similar, but is different, and thus belongs to the true voice actress They marketed it as her voice when Altman tweeted Her.
        mwigdahl 2y ago
        > They marketed it as her voice when Altman tweeted Her. Even that is not open and shut. He tweeted one word. He certainly wanted an association between the product and the movie, but it is a much more specific assertion that that one word demonstrates an intent to associate the product's voice actress with the voice actress who portrayed the comparable product's voice actress in the movie.
      - bazoom42 2y ago
        That is not how it works. See: 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...
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > It's valuable because it's Scarlet Johansson's voice. I think demonstrating that this is a substantial part of the attraction of OpenAI's tech will be difficult.
      - tivert 2y ago
        >> It's valuable because it's Scarlet Johansson's voice. > I think demonstrating that this is a substantial part of the attraction of OpenAI's tech will be difficult. I think it's totally irrelevant if her voice "is a substantial part of the attraction of OpenAI's tech." What matters is they took something from her that was her valuable property (her likeness). It doesn't matter if what they took makes op 99% of the value or 0.00001%.
bazoom42 2y ago
Nobody stops anyone from suing, but the less-famous actor would have to make a plausible case that the big-budget movie intended to copy the voice of the less-famous actor.

by yorwba 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> what's to stop less-famous actors from suing over the use of a famous actor who sounds just like them in big-budget movies? Not having idiots (or ChatGPT) for judges.

tivert 2y ago
> Not having idiots (or ChatGPT) for judges. Always the Achilles heel of software engineers' (not so) clever legal strategies.
mike_hearn 2y ago
That's a common retort on HN but it's information free. Judges are at least theoretically and often in practice bound to follow both written law and logic, even if it yields apparently silly outcomes. The prevalence of openly political judgements in the news makes it seem like this isn't the case, but those judgements are newsworthy exactly because they are shocking and outrageous. If voices being similar to each other is found to be grounds for a successful tort action then it'd establish a legal precedent, and it's very unlikely that precedent would be interpreted as "whoever the judge heard of first wins".
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > it's very unlikely that precedent would be interpreted as "whoever the judge heard of first wins" No, it's whoever's voice is famous. The voice per se isn't valuable, its fame is. Personality rights are precedented [1]. > voices being similar to each other is found to be grounds for a successful tort action then it'd establish a legal precedent It's not about similarity. It's about property. Johansson developed her voice into a valuable asset. It's valuable because it's Scarlet Johansson's voice. Tweeting Her explicitly tied it to Johansson, even if that wasn't the case up to that point. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    Yeah, but it's not Scarlett Johansson's voice and therefore not her property. It's one that sounds similar, but is different, and thus belongs to the true voice actress.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > it's not Scarlett Johansson's voice and therefore not her property It's not her voice. But it may have been intended to sound like her voice. (I believe this less than twenty-four hours ago, but I'm hesitant to grant Altman the benefit of doubt.) If it were her voice, would you agree that seems distasteful? > one that sounds similar, but is different, and thus belongs to the true voice actress They marketed it as her voice when Altman tweeted Her.
      - mwigdahl 2y ago
        > They marketed it as her voice when Altman tweeted Her. Even that is not open and shut. He tweeted one word. He certainly wanted an association between the product and the movie, but it is a much more specific assertion that that one word demonstrates an intent to associate the product's voice actress with the voice actress who portrayed the comparable product's voice actress in the movie.
    - bazoom42 2y ago
      That is not how it works. See: 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...
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > It's valuable because it's Scarlet Johansson's voice. I think demonstrating that this is a substantial part of the attraction of OpenAI's tech will be difficult.
    - tivert 2y ago
      >> It's valuable because it's Scarlet Johansson's voice. > I think demonstrating that this is a substantial part of the attraction of OpenAI's tech will be difficult. I think it's totally irrelevant if her voice "is a substantial part of the attraction of OpenAI's tech." What matters is they took something from her that was her valuable property (her likeness). It doesn't matter if what they took makes op 99% of the value or 0.00001%.

bazoom42 2y ago

Nobody stops anyone from suing, but the less-famous actor would have to make a plausible case that the big-budget movie intended to copy the voice of the less-famous actor.