3 ms·

You misunderstand how personality rights work. Called it in the other thread and calling it in this one, there is no wrongdoing on OpenAI's side. Looking/soun

You misunderstand how personality rights work. Called it in the other thread and calling it in this one, there is no wrongdoing on OpenAI's side. Looking/sounding like somebody else (even if its famous) is not prosecutable. Scarlet Johansson has nothing in this case, whether people like it or not. That's the reality.

eynsham 2y ago
Who said it was ‘prosecutable’?
- moralestapia 2y ago
  Scarlet Johansson is threatening legal action against OpenAI for this. Are you not aware of this?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Scarlet Johansson is threatening legal action against OpenAI for this Scarlet Johansson cannot prosecute anyone. She can sue them, in civil court, for civil damages. Prosecution is done in connection with crimes. Nobody is alleging any crimes here.
    - moralestapia 2y ago
      prosecute: to officially accuse someone of committing an illegal act, and to bring a case against that person in a court of law Source: Cambridge's dictionary (but any other would work as well)
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > From Cambridge's (or any other) dictionary Where did you get this? I'm seeing "to officially accuse someone of committing a crime" [1]. Criminality is esssential to the term. (EDIT: Found it. Cambridge Academic Content dictionary. It seems to be a simplified text [2]. I'm surprised they summarised the legal definition that way versus going for the colloquial one.) You have to go back to the 18th century to find the term used to refer to initiating any legal action [3][4]. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prosecute https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prosecut... [2] https://www.cambridge.org/us/cambridgeenglish/catalog/dictionaries/cambridge-academic-content-dictionary https://www.cambridge.org/us/cambridgeenglish/catalog/dictio... [3] https://verejnazaloba.cz/en/more-about-public-prosecution/history-of-public-prosecution/ https://verejnazaloba.cz/en/more-about-public-prosecution/hi... [4] https://www.etymonline.com/word/prosecute https://www.etymonline.com/word/prosecute
        selimthegrim 2y ago
        I think it’s still common informal usage to prosecute a (moral) case. Maybe more common in the UK where you can bring a literal private prosecution. Although I think what lawyers say these days is that it’s not colorable.
        amenhotep 2y ago
        Why would that make it more common in the UK? Being able to bring a private prosecution strengthens the distinction, a regular citizen can both sue someone for a civil offense and prosecute someone for a criminal offense. It makes it more clearly nonsense to refer to suing someone for slandering you as "prosecuting" them because you can bring prosecutions and that is not one!
        selimthegrim 2y ago
        Like I said, a moral case. There are also things like “trial of the facts”
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > it’s still common informal usage to prosecute a (moral) case Sure, those are other definitions [1], e.g. to prosecute an argument. Within a legal context, however, it is black and white. > in the UK where you can bring a literal private prosecution For crimes. One wouldn't say one is prosecuting a defendant for e.g. libel. (Some states have private prosecution [2].) [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosecute https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosecute [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution#United_Sta...
        selimthegrim 2y ago
        I didn’t know that about the states. Thanks.
        Gormo 2y ago
        The third definition listed on your Merriam-Webster link seems to be what's applicable here, and very clearly describes the term as applicable to any legal action. This is consistent with my understanding of the term as a native English speaker, having experienced the term "prosecute" being used in reference to both criminal and civil cases in all forms of discourse, verbal and written, formal and informal, for decades, and only first encountering the claim that it shouldn't be used for civil cases here in this thread, today.
      - johnbellone 2y ago
        Go away with the “well, actually”. It’s a civil dispute.
        Gormo 2y ago
        The term "prosecution" applies to civil cases as well as criminal ones.
  - chrisjj 2y ago
    > Scarlet Johansson is threatening legal action against OpenAI for this. Not true. SJ's statement seeks info and does not threaten legal action.
codingdave 2y ago
> whether people like it or not. That's the reality. That is exactly it - people do not like how OpenAI is acting. Whether or not there is legal action to be had is an interesting tangent, but not the actual point - OpenAI's actions are ticking people off. Just because something is legal does not mean it is the right thing to do.
omnicognate 2y ago
Nobody said looking/sounding like someone else is "prosecutable", and this willfully obtuse reading is getting annoying. Many people here, including you, seem to be under the impression that a person who sounds like a celebrity can, because they are not that celebrity, do whatever they want with their voice regardless of whether or not they seem to be passing off as or profiting from the persona of that celebrity. This is not the case. When others point this out many people, again including you, then go "so you're saying the fact that someone sounds like a celebrity means they can't do anything with their voice - how absurd!", and that isn't the case either, and nobody is saying it. This binary view is what I'm calling obtuse. The intent matters, and that is not clear-cut. There are some things here that seem to point to intent on OpenAI's part to replicate Her. There are other things that seem to point away from this. If this comes to a court case, a judge or jury will have to weigh these things up. It's not straightforward, and there are people far more knowledeable in these matters than me saying that she could have a strong case here. People have now said this an absurd number of times and yet you seem to be insisting on this binary view that completely ignores intent. This is why I am calling it willfully obtuse. If the above are misrepresentations of your argument then please clarify, but both seemed pretty clear from your posts. If instead you take the view that what matters here is whether there was intent to profit from Scarlett Johannson's public persona then we don't disagree. I have no opinions on whether they had intent or not, but I think it very much looks like they did, and whether they did would be a question for a court (alongside many others, such as whether it really does sound like her) if she were to sue, not that there is any indication she will. Edit: And I should say IANAL of course, and these legal questions are complex and dependent on jurisdiction. California has both a statutory right and a common law one. Both, I think, require intent, but only the common law one would apply in this case as the statutory one explicity only applies to use of the person's actual voice. (That seems a bit outdated in today's deepfake ridden world, but given the common law right protected Midler from the use of an impersonator perhaps that is considered sufficient.) https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-right-publicity-law https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-right-publicity-...
Steko 2y ago
> You misunderstand how personality rights work .. Called it in the other thread One of the great things about HN is you get all kinds of experts from every field imaginable. > is not prosecutable Yikes.
hatenberg 2y ago
All we need is discovery. They’ll settle before that because we all know they are swimming in dirt.

eynsham 2y ago

Who said it was ‘prosecutable’?

moralestapia 2y ago
Scarlet Johansson is threatening legal action against OpenAI for this. Are you not aware of this?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Scarlet Johansson is threatening legal action against OpenAI for this Scarlet Johansson cannot prosecute anyone. She can sue them, in civil court, for civil damages. Prosecution is done in connection with crimes. Nobody is alleging any crimes here.
  - moralestapia 2y ago
    prosecute: to officially accuse someone of committing an illegal act, and to bring a case against that person in a court of law Source: Cambridge's dictionary (but any other would work as well)
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > From Cambridge's (or any other) dictionary Where did you get this? I'm seeing "to officially accuse someone of committing a crime" [1]. Criminality is esssential to the term. (EDIT: Found it. Cambridge Academic Content dictionary. It seems to be a simplified text [2]. I'm surprised they summarised the legal definition that way versus going for the colloquial one.) You have to go back to the 18th century to find the term used to refer to initiating any legal action [3][4]. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prosecute https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prosecut... [2] https://www.cambridge.org/us/cambridgeenglish/catalog/dictionaries/cambridge-academic-content-dictionary https://www.cambridge.org/us/cambridgeenglish/catalog/dictio... [3] https://verejnazaloba.cz/en/more-about-public-prosecution/history-of-public-prosecution/ https://verejnazaloba.cz/en/more-about-public-prosecution/hi... [4] https://www.etymonline.com/word/prosecute https://www.etymonline.com/word/prosecute
      - selimthegrim 2y ago
        I think it’s still common informal usage to prosecute a (moral) case. Maybe more common in the UK where you can bring a literal private prosecution. Although I think what lawyers say these days is that it’s not colorable.
        amenhotep 2y ago
        Why would that make it more common in the UK? Being able to bring a private prosecution strengthens the distinction, a regular citizen can both sue someone for a civil offense and prosecute someone for a criminal offense. It makes it more clearly nonsense to refer to suing someone for slandering you as "prosecuting" them because you can bring prosecutions and that is not one!
        selimthegrim 2y ago
        Like I said, a moral case. There are also things like “trial of the facts”
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > it’s still common informal usage to prosecute a (moral) case Sure, those are other definitions [1], e.g. to prosecute an argument. Within a legal context, however, it is black and white. > in the UK where you can bring a literal private prosecution For crimes. One wouldn't say one is prosecuting a defendant for e.g. libel. (Some states have private prosecution [2].) [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosecute https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosecute [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution#United_Sta...
        selimthegrim 2y ago
        I didn’t know that about the states. Thanks.
        Gormo 2y ago
        The third definition listed on your Merriam-Webster link seems to be what's applicable here, and very clearly describes the term as applicable to any legal action. This is consistent with my understanding of the term as a native English speaker, having experienced the term "prosecute" being used in reference to both criminal and civil cases in all forms of discourse, verbal and written, formal and informal, for decades, and only first encountering the claim that it shouldn't be used for civil cases here in this thread, today.
    - johnbellone 2y ago
      Go away with the “well, actually”. It’s a civil dispute.
      - Gormo 2y ago
        The term "prosecution" applies to civil cases as well as criminal ones.
- chrisjj 2y ago
  > Scarlet Johansson is threatening legal action against OpenAI for this. Not true. SJ's statement seeks info and does not threaten legal action.

codingdave 2y ago

> whether people like it or not. That's the reality. That is exactly it - people do not like how OpenAI is acting. Whether or not there is legal action to be had is an interesting tangent, but not the actual point - OpenAI's actions are ticking people off. Just because something is legal does not mean it is the right thing to do.

omnicognate 2y ago

Nobody said looking/sounding like someone else is "prosecutable", and this willfully obtuse reading is getting annoying. Many people here, including you, seem to be under the impression that a person who sounds like a celebrity can, because they are not that celebrity, do whatever they want with their voice regardless of whether or not they seem to be passing off as or profiting from the persona of that celebrity. This is not the case. When others point this out many people, again including you, then go "so you're saying the fact that someone sounds like a celebrity means they can't do anything with their voice - how absurd!", and that isn't the case either, and nobody is saying it. This binary view is what I'm calling obtuse. The intent matters, and that is not clear-cut. There are some things here that seem to point to intent on OpenAI's part to replicate Her. There are other things that seem to point away from this. If this comes to a court case, a judge or jury will have to weigh these things up. It's not straightforward, and there are people far more knowledeable in these matters than me saying that she could have a strong case here. People have now said this an absurd number of times and yet you seem to be insisting on this binary view that completely ignores intent. This is why I am calling it willfully obtuse. If the above are misrepresentations of your argument then please clarify, but both seemed pretty clear from your posts. If instead you take the view that what matters here is whether there was intent to profit from Scarlett Johannson's public persona then we don't disagree. I have no opinions on whether they had intent or not, but I think it very much looks like they did, and whether they did would be a question for a court (alongside many others, such as whether it really does sound like her) if she were to sue, not that there is any indication she will. Edit: And I should say IANAL of course, and these legal questions are complex and dependent on jurisdiction. California has both a statutory right and a common law one. Both, I think, require intent, but only the common law one would apply in this case as the statutory one explicity only applies to use of the person's actual voice. (That seems a bit outdated in today's deepfake ridden world, but given the common law right protected Midler from the use of an impersonator perhaps that is considered sufficient.) https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-right-publicity-law https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-right-publicity-...

Steko 2y ago

> You misunderstand how personality rights work .. Called it in the other thread One of the great things about HN is you get all kinds of experts from every field imaginable. > is not prosecutable Yikes.

hatenberg 2y ago

All we need is discovery. They’ll settle before that because we all know they are swimming in dirt.