14 ms·

Well, here are some things that aren't really being disputed: * OpenAI wanted an AI voice that sounds like SJ * SJ declined * OpenAI got an AI voice that sou

by jmull 2y ago

Well, here are some things that aren't really being disputed: * OpenAI wanted an AI voice that sounds like SJ * SJ declined * OpenAI got an AI voice that sounds like SJ anyway I guess they want us to believe this happened without shenanigans, but it's bit hard to. The headline of the article is a little funny, because records can't really show they weren't looking for an SJ sound-alike. They can just show that those records didn't mention it. The key decision-makers could simply have agreed to keep that fact close-to-the-vest -- they may have well understood that knocking off a high-profile actress was legally perilous. Also, I think we can readily assume OpenAI understood that one of their potential voices sounded a lot like SJ. Since they were pursuing her they must have had a pretty good idea of what they were going after, especially considering the likely price tag. So even if an SJ voice wasn't the original goal, it clearly became an important goal to them. They surely listened to demos for many voice actors, auditioned a number of them, and may even have recorded many of them, but somehow they selected one for release who seemed to sound a lot like SJ.

93po 2y ago
The article clearly disputes this. They hired and worked with the voice actor for Sky months before the first time SJ was contacted, and the voice actor used for Sky never had the movie Her or SJ's name mentioned to her a single time
- qarl 2y ago
  Right. And that's extremely hard to believe. A discovery search of the internal emails should give us a definitive answer.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    To find this "extremely hard to believe", you have to argue that this story, which has multiple sources unaffiliated with OpenAI, contemporaneous documentary evidence, and is written by a reporter with every incentive in the world to roast OpenAI, is directly wrong about facts plainly reported in the story. I think you have to want this story to be wrong to think it's wrong. It's a tough beat! Everyone was super sure OpenAI did this bad thing just a couple days ago, and now they're feeling sheepish about it.
    - 93po 2y ago
      I wrote a comment to this exact effect yesterday. We didn't have both sides of the story, let's give Sam/OAI, like, literally just a single day to present their own side. And now he did, and I am sure all the people shouting down Sam at every turn still give no shits and will move the goalposts.
    - qarl 2y ago
      I'm sorry friend, I don't know what to tell you. I find it extremely hard to believe.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        I can see that you do.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Phemist 2y ago
      Out of all journalistic outlets, WaPo, being owned by Bezos, has the least incentive to roast OpenAI in this case. Wouldn't it be nice if Bezos/Amazon could make Alexa sound like a voice actress that sounds a lot like ScarJo without repercussions? First step is to shape the public opinion.
    - edgyquant 2y ago
      He literally posted “her” on Twitter the day before the press release. The willful ignorance here is astounding
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      The reporter was quite unquestioning. OpenAI reached out to SJ to use her as a voice actor. Why was the casting call for non-union actors only? SJ is a SAG union member. "Non-union actors, unless you happen to be her?" Her agent feared for her client's safety? Why? And to the point where the agent wants to stay anonymous, too? Highly ironic, given that ultimately, a single voice statement from the voice actor could be far more conclusive of OpenAI's defense. Altman was not "intimately involved"... well, other than the latter attempt to sign SJ two days prior to launch coming from him personally... The agent said the actress confirmed that neither Johansson nor the movie “Her” were ever mentioned by OpenAI. Weird they'd not say anything to her when they were making these references public.
- bmitc 2y ago
  That doesn't mean anything. They could have been and were likely developing the process and technology while having Johansson in mind the whole time. > never had the movie Her or SJ's name mentioned to her a single time How do you know that?
  - z7 2y ago
    The article says: >The agent, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to assure the safety of her client, said the actress confirmed that neither Johansson nor the movie “Her” were ever mentioned by OpenAI.
    - bmitc 2y ago
      So an anonymous statement from a puff piece when multiple verifiable public records show OpenAI publicly mentioning Johansson and Her. Count me skeptical.
    - edgyquant 2y ago
      It was mentioned by Sam himself on Twitter. So this is a bold face lie I can’t believe anyone is buying.
- giobox 2y ago
  The Movie Her predates all of this by years, and Sam Altman even tweeted "her"! The OpenAI team are clearly well aware of Scarlett's voice (its inconceivable the majority of the team at OpenAI haven't at least seen part of the film that almost defined their industry). The movie predates all of this by years - of course they knew. When auditioning actors "months before" they can still look for an actor who guess what? Sounds like SJ, even "before the first time SJ was contacted". As the actor - I'd likely also be looking to emulate SJ in Her - its clearly what the client was looking for.
  - asaxena76 2y ago
    Even if thats true why would that be illegal or unethical? She can't possibly have a copyright on all voices that sounds like "her"
    - mastax 2y ago
      There have been cases where it was decided that a person had rights[0] to their distinctive voice, as an extension of the Right of Publicity[1]. For example Midler v. Ford Motor Co.[2], and one or two other cases I've seen mentioned but can't remember. [0]: Though not necessarily "copyrights"? [1]: https://higgslaw.com/celebrities-sue-over-unauthorized-use-of-identity/ https://higgslaw.com/celebrities-sue-over-unauthorized-use-o... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
      - Athari 2y ago
        Midler v. Ford is a poor comparison for this case specifically because of: 1. hiring an impersonator 2. copying a song 3. intending to confuse. If what OpenAI is saying is true, then none of the conditions apply. I'd say (1) is unlikely, (2) is very unlikely, and (3) is maybe, at least to some degree.
        pclmulqdq 2y ago
        I would suggest that (3) is a solid "yes" given the other communications around this, and honestly the similarity of the final tone of voice. Very little suggests an intent to confuse more than tweets from company leaders confirming that there was intent to confuse. What is left on the table is whether actual confusion occurred, which is different.
HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
Clearly an SJ voice was the goal, given that Altman asked her to do it, asked her a second time just two days before the ChatGPT-4o release, and then tweeted "her" on the release day. The next day Karpathy, recently ex-OpenAI, then tweets "The killer app of LLMs is Scarlett Johansson". Altman appears to be an habitual liar. Note his recent claim not to be aware of the non-disparagement and claw-back terms he had departing employees agree to. Are we supposed to believe that the company lawyer or head of HR did this without consulting (or more likely being instructed by) the co-founder and CEO?!
- tptacek 2y ago
  They hired the actor that did the voice months before they contacted SJ. The reaction on this site to the news that this story was false is kind of mindbending.
  - HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
    Sure, no-one is disputing that, and despite this Altman then contacts SJ again two days before release asking her to reconsider, then tweets "her" to remind the public what he was shooting for. The goal could have just been ChatGPT with a voice interface, but instead Altman himself is saying the the goal was specifically to copy "her".
    - jackothy 2y ago
      He's not necessarily saying that was the goal from the start. All he is admitting with that tweet is that it is indeed (he finds it to be) reminiscent of "Her".
      - HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
        Well, from the start, Altman wanted SJ to do the voice. Perhaps he'd never seen or heard of the movie "her", and the association is just coincidental? After "she" said no, then Altman auditions a bunch of voice talent and picks someone who sounds just like SJ. I guess that's just the kind of voice he likes. So, Altman has forgotten about SJ, has 5 voice talents in the bag, and is good to go, right? But then, 2 days(!) before the release he calls SJ again, asking her to reconsider (getting nervous about what he's about to release, perhaps?). But still, maybe we should give Altman the benefit of the doubt, and assume he wanted SJ so badly because he had a crush on her or something? Then on release day, Altman tweets "her", and reveals a demo not of a sober AI assistant with a voice interface, but of a cringe-inducing AI girlfriend trying to be flirty and emotional. He could have picked any of the five voices for the demo, but you know ... But as you say, he's not admitting anything. When he tweeted "her" maybe it was because he saw the movie for the first time the night before?
spiralk 2y ago
Sky does not really sound like SJ though if you listen side by side. According to OAI's timeline, they intended to have Sky in addition to SJ. OAIs voice models including Sky predate the GPT4o voice assistant. Also: "In a statement from the Sky actress provided by her agent, she wrote that at times the backlash “feels personal being that it’s just my natural voice and I’ve never been compared to her by the people who do know me closely.”" It did not seem like an issue before and the Sky voice was public many months before GPT4o. I don't believe SJ can claim to own all young, attractive woman voices whether they are used as a voice assistant or not. It seems like the issue is being blown out of proportion. It does make a good story. The public perception of AI right now is generally negative and people are looking for reasons to disparage AI companies. Maybe there are good reasons sometimes, but this one is not it.
- throwup238 2y ago
  > It seems like the issue is being blown out of proportion. It kinda feels like its on purpose. Someone in a previous thread mentioned that this might have been a cynical marketing ploy and I'm warming up to the theory. After they recorded the Sky VA, they figured out a whole marketing campaign with SJ to promote the voice feature. After she turned them down (twice), they released with just enough crumbs referencing the movie to goad SJ into committing a first degree Streisand. With the slow roll out, everyone would have forgotten about the feature the day after the announcement but now it's been in the news for a week, constantly reminding everyone of what's coming up.
  - chung8123 2y ago
    In addition they have prepared for a full court case before hand, with all their ducks in a row in theory. I am not a lawyer so I am not sure if the law works this way but this might help them defend their case and set a precedence.
  - spiralk 2y ago
    That sounds plausible actually. The controversy has given OAI free marketing.
  - 2y ago
chung8123 2y ago
I would say that OpenAI wanted something that sounded like her which in turn sounded like Scarlett Johannson. I also think the "sounded like" is less clear than you think. Is it similar, yes. But how similar I am not sure what the line is but for sure I didn't think it was Scarlett Johannson. By saying it is Scarlett Johannson and relating it to her our brains will make the association though. That is marketing.
soerxpso 2y ago
It doesn't seem like you'd need "shenanigans" for this. Lots of voice actors are capable of doing voices that sound like other people, and some even have a natural voice that happens to sound very similar to a particular more noteworthy celebrity. AFAIU, the rights to your likeness only apply to your likeness, not to the likeness of someone else who happens to look or sound a lot like you. For a case that doesn't involve AI at all, consider situations where a voice actor in a cartoon is replaced (sometimes while still alive) by someone who can perform a voice that sounds the same. Decisively not illegal. Most people don't even find it immoral, as long as the reason for getting rid of the original voice actor wasn't wrong on its own (e.g. Roiland).
- WalterBright 2y ago
  The attempts to sound like Mel Blanc after his death just don't sound right to me. Or maybe it's just the bad scripts.
- gwern 2y ago
  > For a case that doesn't involve AI at all, consider situations where a voice actor in a cartoon is replaced (sometimes while still alive) by someone who can perform a voice that sounds the same. Decisively not illegal. Because there are contractual clauses. Do you think Hank Azaria owns the voice of 'Homer Simpson'? Or does Fox own that? It would be crazy to develop a show and then be held hostage to your voice actors for all future shows - what if they get hit by a car?
gunapologist99 2y ago
Regardless of the moral implications, "sounds almost exactly the same" is not copyright infringement. Perhaps it could be trademark infringement if she had trademarked her voice like Harley-Davidson attempted (and failed) to trademark the sound of their motorcycles, but "sounds alike" is a pretty hard case to prove, and it's completely blown away if they can demonstrate that another human sounds indisputably similar. People do celebrity impressions all the time, and that's not infringement either, because it's not actually copying that person's voice. I'm sympathetic to SJ in this matter, especially after the Disney Black Widow debacle, but it sounds like she had the opportunity to write herself a nice check, and she turned it down. On the basis of this article, it sounds like she doesn't have the cause of action that she had believed she had; I imagine that her legal team are now advising a fast settlement, but OpenAI's legal team might prefer to milk the free publicity for as long as they can, especially if they are fairly certain they would prevail at trial.
- Athari 2y ago
  > it sounds like she had the opportunity to write herself a nice check, and she turned it down. If I were SJ, I'd turn it down too. Shes in no need of money, and selling her voice to OpenAI would make most of creators and every single voice actor hate her (not to mention the Twitter mob). In majority of creative circles, the current social norm is to hate AI, so touching AI in any way is too risky for reputation.
- l33tman 2y ago
  It isn't about copyright, it's about passing-off, it's described elsewhere in detail in these threads what it means. It's about intention and what the customer believes. If customers might believe its SJ, due to samas tweets, general likeness in voice, and the context (voice assistant), the public info about them trying to get SJ to do this - that's passing-off, even if it wasn't training on her voice per se. There are numerous law cases about this.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
rmbyrro 2y ago
I think a better characterization would be: * OpenAI wanted an AI voice that is SJ's voice * SJ declined * OpenAI got an AI voice from another person that sounds like SJ
- gs17 2y ago
  That would require a step 3 where they get in a time machine: > But while many hear an eerie resemblance between “Sky” and Johansson’s “Her” character, an actress was hired to create the Sky voice months before Altman contacted Johansson, according to documents, recordings, casting directors and the actress’s agent.
  - rmbyrro 2y ago
    In that case, it's going to be even harder to prove any wrong doing by OpenAI.
plorg 2y ago
It probably is worth paying attention to the water WaPo is carrying for OpenAI here next to their publisher's announcement about prioritizing the use of AI in their newsrooms.
outworlder 2y ago
> I guess they want us to believe this happened without shenanigans, but it's bit hard to. Right. And the question is, did they actually used SJ's voice as part of their training data? Because there's a lot of that available given all her works. There's a reason why they wanted 'her', specifically. What reason is that? If they could just work with a noname voice actress (likely, for far cheaper), why not just do that from the get go? It could be a marketing gimmick and maybe they wanted her name more than just the voice to add to the buzz. If it is not that, then the sequence of events doesn't make sense.
WalterBright 2y ago
This controversy is great marketing for SJ, too.
paulddraper 2y ago
I don't understand. If you literally use SJ's image or voice, then you're in trouble. If it's an SJ lookalike or soundalike (and you don't claim otherwise), there's no problem. Right? What's the "shenanigans?"
- sanderjd 2y ago
  Your second statement may not be true, legally, and at the very least many (including the actress in question) believe it is not true, ethically.
- kopecs 2y ago
  > If it's an SJ lookalike or soundalike (and you don't claim otherwise), there's no problem. This isn't true. At least with respect to "soundalike" see, e.g., Waits v. Frito-Lay 978 F.2d 1093 and Midler v. Ford Motor Co. 849 F.2d 460.
  - paulddraper 2y ago
    Lol what a joke. The famous person "owns" the sound of their voice, and the non-famous person does not. Get wrecked peasants.
    - standardly 2y ago
      Imagine being sued by a celebrity for looking or sounding like them. Should've not chosen to born with a similar voice.
      - kamaal 2y ago
        This whole thing is so bizarre. A lot of people look handsome, sound handsome and are even stylish. So some rich person can randomly claim some one looks closer or sounds closer to them and hence needs to forced to wear a mask to prevented from even talking? So what happens next, when AI bots begin to sing, compose music, teach, paint or anything for that matter?
spullara 2y ago
Since they asked two days before it was launched back in September my guess is that the voice was already created by then.
eagleinparadise 2y ago
So what? They’re free to hire whoever they want to be a voice actor. It’s not illegal for them to hire someone that sounds like Barack Obama.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  If you say "yes we can" as your corporate announcement of that person who sounds like Obama, and one of your employees (or rather ex-executives) says "the secret ingredient in AGI is Obama", it actually can be illegal. The main issue in NIL rights (as with trademarks) isn't similarity - it's brand confusion.
Wowfunhappy 2y ago
But there's nothing wrong with this! Let's say I'm making a movie. I have an old wizard character similar to Gandolf in Lord of the Rings, so I contact the guy who played Gandolf in Lord of the Rings. He says no, so I hire a different actor who also fits the "old wise wizard" archetype. Is any of that illegal?
j0hnyl 2y ago
Except the voice does NOT sound like SJ.
kangaroozach 2y ago
Well said.
throwthrowuknow 2y ago
> In a statement from the Sky actress provided by her agent, she wrote that at times the backlash “feels personal being that it’s just my natural voice and I’ve never been compared to her by the people who do know me closely.”
piloto_ciego 2y ago
This isn’t the timeline though? The actor for Sky was hired and cast before they even reached out to SkarJo. The idea that they wanted to literally reproduce “Her” feels like motivated reasoning to me.

by jmull 2y ago

93po 2y ago

The article clearly disputes this. They hired and worked with the voice actor for Sky months before the first time SJ was contacted, and the voice actor used for Sky never had the movie Her or SJ's name mentioned to her a single time

qarl 2y ago
Right. And that's extremely hard to believe. A discovery search of the internal emails should give us a definitive answer.
- tptacek 2y ago
  To find this "extremely hard to believe", you have to argue that this story, which has multiple sources unaffiliated with OpenAI, contemporaneous documentary evidence, and is written by a reporter with every incentive in the world to roast OpenAI, is directly wrong about facts plainly reported in the story. I think you have to want this story to be wrong to think it's wrong. It's a tough beat! Everyone was super sure OpenAI did this bad thing just a couple days ago, and now they're feeling sheepish about it.
  - 93po 2y ago
    I wrote a comment to this exact effect yesterday. We didn't have both sides of the story, let's give Sam/OAI, like, literally just a single day to present their own side. And now he did, and I am sure all the people shouting down Sam at every turn still give no shits and will move the goalposts.
  - qarl 2y ago
    I'm sorry friend, I don't know what to tell you. I find it extremely hard to believe.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      I can see that you do.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Phemist 2y ago
    Out of all journalistic outlets, WaPo, being owned by Bezos, has the least incentive to roast OpenAI in this case. Wouldn't it be nice if Bezos/Amazon could make Alexa sound like a voice actress that sounds a lot like ScarJo without repercussions? First step is to shape the public opinion.
  - edgyquant 2y ago
    He literally posted “her” on Twitter the day before the press release. The willful ignorance here is astounding
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    The reporter was quite unquestioning. OpenAI reached out to SJ to use her as a voice actor. Why was the casting call for non-union actors only? SJ is a SAG union member. "Non-union actors, unless you happen to be her?" Her agent feared for her client's safety? Why? And to the point where the agent wants to stay anonymous, too? Highly ironic, given that ultimately, a single voice statement from the voice actor could be far more conclusive of OpenAI's defense. Altman was not "intimately involved"... well, other than the latter attempt to sign SJ two days prior to launch coming from him personally... The agent said the actress confirmed that neither Johansson nor the movie “Her” were ever mentioned by OpenAI. Weird they'd not say anything to her when they were making these references public.
bmitc 2y ago
That doesn't mean anything. They could have been and were likely developing the process and technology while having Johansson in mind the whole time. > never had the movie Her or SJ's name mentioned to her a single time How do you know that?
- z7 2y ago
  The article says: >The agent, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to assure the safety of her client, said the actress confirmed that neither Johansson nor the movie “Her” were ever mentioned by OpenAI.
  - bmitc 2y ago
    So an anonymous statement from a puff piece when multiple verifiable public records show OpenAI publicly mentioning Johansson and Her. Count me skeptical.
  - edgyquant 2y ago
    It was mentioned by Sam himself on Twitter. So this is a bold face lie I can’t believe anyone is buying.
giobox 2y ago
The Movie Her predates all of this by years, and Sam Altman even tweeted "her"! The OpenAI team are clearly well aware of Scarlett's voice (its inconceivable the majority of the team at OpenAI haven't at least seen part of the film that almost defined their industry). The movie predates all of this by years - of course they knew. When auditioning actors "months before" they can still look for an actor who guess what? Sounds like SJ, even "before the first time SJ was contacted". As the actor - I'd likely also be looking to emulate SJ in Her - its clearly what the client was looking for.
- asaxena76 2y ago
  Even if thats true why would that be illegal or unethical? She can't possibly have a copyright on all voices that sounds like "her"
  - mastax 2y ago
    There have been cases where it was decided that a person had rights[0] to their distinctive voice, as an extension of the Right of Publicity[1]. For example Midler v. Ford Motor Co.[2], and one or two other cases I've seen mentioned but can't remember. [0]: Though not necessarily "copyrights"? [1]: https://higgslaw.com/celebrities-sue-over-unauthorized-use-of-identity/ https://higgslaw.com/celebrities-sue-over-unauthorized-use-o... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
    - Athari 2y ago
      Midler v. Ford is a poor comparison for this case specifically because of: 1. hiring an impersonator 2. copying a song 3. intending to confuse. If what OpenAI is saying is true, then none of the conditions apply. I'd say (1) is unlikely, (2) is very unlikely, and (3) is maybe, at least to some degree.
      - pclmulqdq 2y ago
        I would suggest that (3) is a solid "yes" given the other communications around this, and honestly the similarity of the final tone of voice. Very little suggests an intent to confuse more than tweets from company leaders confirming that there was intent to confuse. What is left on the table is whether actual confusion occurred, which is different.

HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago

Clearly an SJ voice was the goal, given that Altman asked her to do it, asked her a second time just two days before the ChatGPT-4o release, and then tweeted "her" on the release day. The next day Karpathy, recently ex-OpenAI, then tweets "The killer app of LLMs is Scarlett Johansson". Altman appears to be an habitual liar. Note his recent claim not to be aware of the non-disparagement and claw-back terms he had departing employees agree to. Are we supposed to believe that the company lawyer or head of HR did this without consulting (or more likely being instructed by) the co-founder and CEO?!

tptacek 2y ago
They hired the actor that did the voice months before they contacted SJ. The reaction on this site to the news that this story was false is kind of mindbending.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
  Sure, no-one is disputing that, and despite this Altman then contacts SJ again two days before release asking her to reconsider, then tweets "her" to remind the public what he was shooting for. The goal could have just been ChatGPT with a voice interface, but instead Altman himself is saying the the goal was specifically to copy "her".
  - jackothy 2y ago
    He's not necessarily saying that was the goal from the start. All he is admitting with that tweet is that it is indeed (he finds it to be) reminiscent of "Her".
    - HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
      Well, from the start, Altman wanted SJ to do the voice. Perhaps he'd never seen or heard of the movie "her", and the association is just coincidental? After "she" said no, then Altman auditions a bunch of voice talent and picks someone who sounds just like SJ. I guess that's just the kind of voice he likes. So, Altman has forgotten about SJ, has 5 voice talents in the bag, and is good to go, right? But then, 2 days(!) before the release he calls SJ again, asking her to reconsider (getting nervous about what he's about to release, perhaps?). But still, maybe we should give Altman the benefit of the doubt, and assume he wanted SJ so badly because he had a crush on her or something? Then on release day, Altman tweets "her", and reveals a demo not of a sober AI assistant with a voice interface, but of a cringe-inducing AI girlfriend trying to be flirty and emotional. He could have picked any of the five voices for the demo, but you know ... But as you say, he's not admitting anything. When he tweeted "her" maybe it was because he saw the movie for the first time the night before?

spiralk 2y ago

Sky does not really sound like SJ though if you listen side by side. According to OAI's timeline, they intended to have Sky in addition to SJ. OAIs voice models including Sky predate the GPT4o voice assistant. Also: "In a statement from the Sky actress provided by her agent, she wrote that at times the backlash “feels personal being that it’s just my natural voice and I’ve never been compared to her by the people who do know me closely.”" It did not seem like an issue before and the Sky voice was public many months before GPT4o. I don't believe SJ can claim to own all young, attractive woman voices whether they are used as a voice assistant or not. It seems like the issue is being blown out of proportion. It does make a good story. The public perception of AI right now is generally negative and people are looking for reasons to disparage AI companies. Maybe there are good reasons sometimes, but this one is not it.

throwup238 2y ago
> It seems like the issue is being blown out of proportion. It kinda feels like its on purpose. Someone in a previous thread mentioned that this might have been a cynical marketing ploy and I'm warming up to the theory. After they recorded the Sky VA, they figured out a whole marketing campaign with SJ to promote the voice feature. After she turned them down (twice), they released with just enough crumbs referencing the movie to goad SJ into committing a first degree Streisand. With the slow roll out, everyone would have forgotten about the feature the day after the announcement but now it's been in the news for a week, constantly reminding everyone of what's coming up.
- chung8123 2y ago
  In addition they have prepared for a full court case before hand, with all their ducks in a row in theory. I am not a lawyer so I am not sure if the law works this way but this might help them defend their case and set a precedence.
- spiralk 2y ago
  That sounds plausible actually. The controversy has given OAI free marketing.
- 2y ago

chung8123 2y ago

I would say that OpenAI wanted something that sounded like her which in turn sounded like Scarlett Johannson. I also think the "sounded like" is less clear than you think. Is it similar, yes. But how similar I am not sure what the line is but for sure I didn't think it was Scarlett Johannson. By saying it is Scarlett Johannson and relating it to her our brains will make the association though. That is marketing.

soerxpso 2y ago

It doesn't seem like you'd need "shenanigans" for this. Lots of voice actors are capable of doing voices that sound like other people, and some even have a natural voice that happens to sound very similar to a particular more noteworthy celebrity. AFAIU, the rights to your likeness only apply to your likeness, not to the likeness of someone else who happens to look or sound a lot like you. For a case that doesn't involve AI at all, consider situations where a voice actor in a cartoon is replaced (sometimes while still alive) by someone who can perform a voice that sounds the same. Decisively not illegal. Most people don't even find it immoral, as long as the reason for getting rid of the original voice actor wasn't wrong on its own (e.g. Roiland).

WalterBright 2y ago
The attempts to sound like Mel Blanc after his death just don't sound right to me. Or maybe it's just the bad scripts.
gwern 2y ago
> For a case that doesn't involve AI at all, consider situations where a voice actor in a cartoon is replaced (sometimes while still alive) by someone who can perform a voice that sounds the same. Decisively not illegal. Because there are contractual clauses. Do you think Hank Azaria owns the voice of 'Homer Simpson'? Or does Fox own that? It would be crazy to develop a show and then be held hostage to your voice actors for all future shows - what if they get hit by a car?

gunapologist99 2y ago

Regardless of the moral implications, "sounds almost exactly the same" is not copyright infringement. Perhaps it could be trademark infringement if she had trademarked her voice like Harley-Davidson attempted (and failed) to trademark the sound of their motorcycles, but "sounds alike" is a pretty hard case to prove, and it's completely blown away if they can demonstrate that another human sounds indisputably similar. People do celebrity impressions all the time, and that's not infringement either, because it's not actually copying that person's voice. I'm sympathetic to SJ in this matter, especially after the Disney Black Widow debacle, but it sounds like she had the opportunity to write herself a nice check, and she turned it down. On the basis of this article, it sounds like she doesn't have the cause of action that she had believed she had; I imagine that her legal team are now advising a fast settlement, but OpenAI's legal team might prefer to milk the free publicity for as long as they can, especially if they are fairly certain they would prevail at trial.

Athari 2y ago
> it sounds like she had the opportunity to write herself a nice check, and she turned it down. If I were SJ, I'd turn it down too. Shes in no need of money, and selling her voice to OpenAI would make most of creators and every single voice actor hate her (not to mention the Twitter mob). In majority of creative circles, the current social norm is to hate AI, so touching AI in any way is too risky for reputation.
l33tman 2y ago
It isn't about copyright, it's about passing-off, it's described elsewhere in detail in these threads what it means. It's about intention and what the customer believes. If customers might believe its SJ, due to samas tweets, general likeness in voice, and the context (voice assistant), the public info about them trying to get SJ to do this - that's passing-off, even if it wasn't training on her voice per se. There are numerous law cases about this.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

rmbyrro 2y ago

I think a better characterization would be: * OpenAI wanted an AI voice that is SJ's voice * SJ declined * OpenAI got an AI voice from another person that sounds like SJ

gs17 2y ago
That would require a step 3 where they get in a time machine: > But while many hear an eerie resemblance between “Sky” and Johansson’s “Her” character, an actress was hired to create the Sky voice months before Altman contacted Johansson, according to documents, recordings, casting directors and the actress’s agent.
- rmbyrro 2y ago
  In that case, it's going to be even harder to prove any wrong doing by OpenAI.

plorg 2y ago

It probably is worth paying attention to the water WaPo is carrying for OpenAI here next to their publisher's announcement about prioritizing the use of AI in their newsrooms.

outworlder 2y ago

> I guess they want us to believe this happened without shenanigans, but it's bit hard to. Right. And the question is, did they actually used SJ's voice as part of their training data? Because there's a lot of that available given all her works. There's a reason why they wanted 'her', specifically. What reason is that? If they could just work with a noname voice actress (likely, for far cheaper), why not just do that from the get go? It could be a marketing gimmick and maybe they wanted her name more than just the voice to add to the buzz. If it is not that, then the sequence of events doesn't make sense.

WalterBright 2y ago

This controversy is great marketing for SJ, too.

paulddraper 2y ago

I don't understand. If you literally use SJ's image or voice, then you're in trouble. If it's an SJ lookalike or soundalike (and you don't claim otherwise), there's no problem. Right? What's the "shenanigans?"

sanderjd 2y ago
Your second statement may not be true, legally, and at the very least many (including the actress in question) believe it is not true, ethically.
kopecs 2y ago
> If it's an SJ lookalike or soundalike (and you don't claim otherwise), there's no problem. This isn't true. At least with respect to "soundalike" see, e.g., Waits v. Frito-Lay 978 F.2d 1093 and Midler v. Ford Motor Co. 849 F.2d 460.
- paulddraper 2y ago
  Lol what a joke. The famous person "owns" the sound of their voice, and the non-famous person does not. Get wrecked peasants.
  - standardly 2y ago
    Imagine being sued by a celebrity for looking or sounding like them. Should've not chosen to born with a similar voice.
    - kamaal 2y ago
      This whole thing is so bizarre. A lot of people look handsome, sound handsome and are even stylish. So some rich person can randomly claim some one looks closer or sounds closer to them and hence needs to forced to wear a mask to prevented from even talking? So what happens next, when AI bots begin to sing, compose music, teach, paint or anything for that matter?

spullara 2y ago

Since they asked two days before it was launched back in September my guess is that the voice was already created by then.

eagleinparadise 2y ago

So what? They’re free to hire whoever they want to be a voice actor. It’s not illegal for them to hire someone that sounds like Barack Obama.

pclmulqdq 2y ago
If you say "yes we can" as your corporate announcement of that person who sounds like Obama, and one of your employees (or rather ex-executives) says "the secret ingredient in AGI is Obama", it actually can be illegal. The main issue in NIL rights (as with trademarks) isn't similarity - it's brand confusion.

Wowfunhappy 2y ago

But there's nothing wrong with this! Let's say I'm making a movie. I have an old wizard character similar to Gandolf in Lord of the Rings, so I contact the guy who played Gandolf in Lord of the Rings. He says no, so I hire a different actor who also fits the "old wise wizard" archetype. Is any of that illegal?

j0hnyl 2y ago

Except the voice does NOT sound like SJ.

kangaroozach 2y ago

Well said.

throwthrowuknow 2y ago

> In a statement from the Sky actress provided by her agent, she wrote that at times the backlash “feels personal being that it’s just my natural voice and I’ve never been compared to her by the people who do know me closely.”

piloto_ciego 2y ago

This isn’t the timeline though? The actor for Sky was hired and cast before they even reached out to SkarJo. The idea that they wanted to literally reproduce “Her” feels like motivated reasoning to me.