5 ms·

Well as the article states, there’s legal precedent protecting actors from having their voices “impersonated” by other actors. The fact that Altman tweeted “her

Well as the article states, there’s legal precedent protecting actors from having their voices “impersonated” by other actors. The fact that Altman tweeted “her” and contacted Johansson can make the case for the intent to impersonate.

Pedro_Ribeiro 2y ago
What if that's just the VA's natural voice? Must she stop doing VA?
- blitzar 2y ago
  No she just has to do so without promoting it as having been done by Scarlett Johansson.
  - Pedro_Ribeiro 2y ago
    It wasn't? None of the people I know thought it was Scarlett Johansson. When Altman tweeted "her" I just thought: "wow, these voices sound really realistic, kinda like the movie" Is this lawsuit worthy?
  - Sebb767 2y ago
    Except there wasn't any promotion. The only thing close would be Sams tweet, but this was not an official statement and could easily be explained to refer to the concept of voice assistants in general. The fact that SJ was contacted twice was actually publicized by SJ and not OpenAI.
    - sumedh 2y ago
      > The only thing close would be Sams tweet, but this was not an official statement How is a tweet from the CEO not an official statement?
      - theultdev 2y ago
        it's the CEO's personal statement. but yes, even a personal statement may have some value in a case, but you ignored the second part of the GP's criticism. you're reaching that the tweet of the poster of "Her" meant "hey guys, this is voiced by SJ" it simply could mean that "hey guys, it sounds as good as the voice assistant from Her" it is voice assistant software after all... mind reading a tweet does not make a good case, especially with the timeline noted in TFA.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > it's the CEO's personal statement Wat. > mind reading a tweet He says the name of the movie! We don’t need to know his state of mind, just the promotional effect.
    - CRConrad 2y ago
      > Except there wasn't any promotion. The only thing close would be Sams tweet, Yeah, that's promotion. > but this was not an official statement Yes of course it was. That's what being a CEO fricking means.
- freejazz 2y ago
  She isn't the issue, she isn't being sued.
  - stale2002 2y ago
    She absolutely is being deplatformed and her rights are violated. If every customer who hires her gets sued, that is basically the same as making it illegal for her to be a VA.
    - freejazz 2y ago
      I don't know what it is about this website that makes discussion of legal issues so frequently poor as it is here right now. >She absolutely is being deplatformed and her rights are violated. No. And 'deplatforming' isn't illegal last I checked, whatever you mean it to be. >If every customer who hires her gets sued, that is basically the same as making it illegal for her to be a VA. They aren't getting sued because she sounds like ScarJo. In fact, its not clear they are being sued at all. What is illegal, that you do not seem to appreciate, is that regardless of whatever a particular individual looks or sounds like, it does not create a right in others to profit over this similarity in likeness. You cannot hire a Harrison Ford impersonator, to pretend to be Harrison Ford and promote your products. That you re-contextualize this as to Harrison Ford look-alikes being deprived work is just your own sad confusion.
      - stale2002 2y ago
        > You cannot hire a Harrison Ford impersonator Good thing that the actress just used her own natural voice then and wasn't going around repeating lines from a movie or dressed up as the more wealthy celebrity. I would hope that you don't want to ban all her potential customers from hiring her. This is absolutely about her rights to sell her own natural voice to potential customers. If it were illegal for her customers to hire her, then this is basically making her job illegal just because someone who happens to have more money and power than her has a similar voice.
        2y ago
chrisjj 2y ago
> Well as the article states, there’s legal precedent protecting actors from having their voices “impersonated” by other actors. The article doesn't state that. It says that about singers. Very different.
- mondrian 2y ago
  Thanks that’s fair.

Pedro_Ribeiro 2y ago

What if that's just the VA's natural voice? Must she stop doing VA?

blitzar 2y ago
No she just has to do so without promoting it as having been done by Scarlett Johansson.
- Pedro_Ribeiro 2y ago
  It wasn't? None of the people I know thought it was Scarlett Johansson. When Altman tweeted "her" I just thought: "wow, these voices sound really realistic, kinda like the movie" Is this lawsuit worthy?
- Sebb767 2y ago
  Except there wasn't any promotion. The only thing close would be Sams tweet, but this was not an official statement and could easily be explained to refer to the concept of voice assistants in general. The fact that SJ was contacted twice was actually publicized by SJ and not OpenAI.
  - sumedh 2y ago
    > The only thing close would be Sams tweet, but this was not an official statement How is a tweet from the CEO not an official statement?
    - theultdev 2y ago
      it's the CEO's personal statement. but yes, even a personal statement may have some value in a case, but you ignored the second part of the GP's criticism. you're reaching that the tweet of the poster of "Her" meant "hey guys, this is voiced by SJ" it simply could mean that "hey guys, it sounds as good as the voice assistant from Her" it is voice assistant software after all... mind reading a tweet does not make a good case, especially with the timeline noted in TFA.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > it's the CEO's personal statement Wat. > mind reading a tweet He says the name of the movie! We don’t need to know his state of mind, just the promotional effect.
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    > Except there wasn't any promotion. The only thing close would be Sams tweet, Yeah, that's promotion. > but this was not an official statement Yes of course it was. That's what being a CEO fricking means.
freejazz 2y ago
She isn't the issue, she isn't being sued.
- stale2002 2y ago
  She absolutely is being deplatformed and her rights are violated. If every customer who hires her gets sued, that is basically the same as making it illegal for her to be a VA.
  - freejazz 2y ago
    I don't know what it is about this website that makes discussion of legal issues so frequently poor as it is here right now. >She absolutely is being deplatformed and her rights are violated. No. And 'deplatforming' isn't illegal last I checked, whatever you mean it to be. >If every customer who hires her gets sued, that is basically the same as making it illegal for her to be a VA. They aren't getting sued because she sounds like ScarJo. In fact, its not clear they are being sued at all. What is illegal, that you do not seem to appreciate, is that regardless of whatever a particular individual looks or sounds like, it does not create a right in others to profit over this similarity in likeness. You cannot hire a Harrison Ford impersonator, to pretend to be Harrison Ford and promote your products. That you re-contextualize this as to Harrison Ford look-alikes being deprived work is just your own sad confusion.
    - stale2002 2y ago
      > You cannot hire a Harrison Ford impersonator Good thing that the actress just used her own natural voice then and wasn't going around repeating lines from a movie or dressed up as the more wealthy celebrity. I would hope that you don't want to ban all her potential customers from hiring her. This is absolutely about her rights to sell her own natural voice to potential customers. If it were illegal for her customers to hire her, then this is basically making her job illegal just because someone who happens to have more money and power than her has a similar voice.
      - 2y ago

chrisjj 2y ago

> Well as the article states, there’s legal precedent protecting actors from having their voices “impersonated” by other actors. The article doesn't state that. It says that about singers. Very different.

mondrian 2y ago
Thanks that’s fair.