4 ms·

The logical parallels might be there but in legal substance they are different cases. A deliberate replication of an artist's distinct singing voice, while sin

The logical parallels might be there but in legal substance they are different cases. A deliberate replication of an artist's distinct singing voice, while singing lyrics associated with that artist, is very different than a passing similarity to someone's non-unique speaking voice. Note that the Johansson issue is playing out only in the court of public opinion.

sdenton4 2y ago
If you think they weren't trying to replicate sj's voice, I can only assume you've got open ai stock clouding your judgement... It looks like they caaaaarefully avoided writing down 'sound like sj' while choosing+directing a sound-alike actor for the role.
- sandworm101 2y ago
  >> If you think they weren't trying to replicate sj's voice Coevolution. The AI and the now-famous actor are the end products of a selection process aimed at a similar audience. The AI creators were likely aiming for the most attractive female voice, according to a bunch of young men. That parallels the process used by those casting action movies, which are also aimed at young men. It should be to nobody's great surprise that the end products of both share many features. What is very odd is how similar celeb faces actually are. There really is a mathematical standard for beauty when it comes to female faces, which is why so many celebs are have eerily identical proportions. There is probably a model too for voices. https://gotobeauty.com/plastic-surgery/how-math-shapes-modern-aesthetic-ideals/ https://gotobeauty.com/plastic-surgery/how-math-shapes-moder...
  - bluefirebrand 2y ago
    > Coevolution. The AI and the now-famous actor are the end products of a selection process aimed at a similar audience This might hold water if the actor weren't famous for more than a decade before the voice model existed
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - jondwillis 2y ago
      2003’s Lost In Translation opening scene would like a word.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - hluska 2y ago
    If it’s coevolution, why did they try to hire Scarlett Johansson? Why not just stick to their guns that it’s “the most attractive female voice”?
- immibis 2y ago
  There's already a well established pattern of corporations carefully not writing down things they don't want to be discovered in a lawsuit.
KennyBlanken 2y ago
Non-unique? What? "Passing similarity"? All her friends and coworkers say it sounds like her - she describes being contacted by friends who thought she'd done it. A lot of the public, including HNers, identified the voice as hers, independently - not in some A/B test, but they heard it and said to themselves "Johanasson did the voice for this." You're the only person in the room who thinks OpenAI didn't use samples of her voice for their voice model - or that the voice has "passing similarity." Altman approached her asking her to do it. She refused; they went ahead and did it anyway, probably using interviews since the audio would be very clean - and two days before they went live with it, Altman tried to negotiate a second time and was rebuffed. Released it anyway. Why would Altman feel the need to panic-negotiate a second time, days before they went live, if they hadn't used her voice for it? If OpenAI designed it to sound like her, that's Midler tort. They actually used her voice to train it, which means Midler tort and more. The question will be how much more - I hope they get sued into the ground.
- Matticus_Rex 2y ago
  > You're the only person in the room who thinks OpenAI didn't use samples of her voice for their voice model Really? No one seems to be claiming that anywhere I've seen. We know that they really did use a voice actress, and that it really is her actual voice, and that she was hired for it before ScarJo was approached. There's no "panic negotiation" there -- the most panic needed would be if someone internally identified that there could be a PR issue if people mistakenly thought it was close enough to seem like intentional impersonation. Of course they wanted ScarJo, once they thought of it! It'd be great publicity. But that doesn't then mean that anyone who sounds somewhat like ScarJo (but certainly not identical) becomes retroactively unusable or makes it vocal impersonation.
  - marcus_holmes 2y ago
    > But that doesn't then mean that anyone who sounds somewhat like ScarJo (but certainly not identical) becomes retroactively unusable or makes it vocal impersonation. yes. yes it does. That's what TFA is saying. Waits' case is exactly about this. They hired a singer to make a recording to sound like Waits. OpenAI hired a voice actress with a voice like Her to make their AI sound like Her. And then their CEO tweeted "her". It's that simple.
ano-ther 2y ago
> Note that the Johansson issue is playing out only in the court of public opinion It takes a while to get a lawsuit going. According to the article, Waits learned about the ad on October 3, 1988, filed a suit in November 1988, and the case was tried before a jury in April and May 1990.
Zod666 2y ago
There's another case with bette Midler and I think it was a Superbowl ad. They approached Midler, she said no, they hired a sounds like, she sued and won. With sj, they approached her 6 months ago, she declined, and again just prior to launch to which she didn't respond. And Sam tweets one word 'her'. This is a slam dunk and they will lose.
more_corn 2y ago
Interesting that the OpenAI astroturfing brigade is coming out of the woodwork. You do know of course that they asked to clone her voice. And when she said no did it anyway, then asked again immediately before release, and then Sam tweeted that it was her?
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  And then when her lawyers ask "So who did supply the voice for this?" they immediately take it down, and immediately hand over a trove of "proof" to WaPo, most of which is so flimsy it'd fall over in a small breeze. Her agent, who has requested anonymity... Tells WaPo that his client, who also "needs to remain anonymous" due to "fears for her safety" tha she told him that OAI "didn't mention SJ". Tells WaPo that she gave him a statement that they can print... What are these fears for the actress' safety that require her, and her agent, to remain anonymous? Why was OAI ready with a trove of legal-reviewed documents to hand to WaPo the moment this blew up?

sdenton4 2y ago

If you think they weren't trying to replicate sj's voice, I can only assume you've got open ai stock clouding your judgement... It looks like they caaaaarefully avoided writing down 'sound like sj' while choosing+directing a sound-alike actor for the role.

sandworm101 2y ago
>> If you think they weren't trying to replicate sj's voice Coevolution. The AI and the now-famous actor are the end products of a selection process aimed at a similar audience. The AI creators were likely aiming for the most attractive female voice, according to a bunch of young men. That parallels the process used by those casting action movies, which are also aimed at young men. It should be to nobody's great surprise that the end products of both share many features. What is very odd is how similar celeb faces actually are. There really is a mathematical standard for beauty when it comes to female faces, which is why so many celebs are have eerily identical proportions. There is probably a model too for voices. https://gotobeauty.com/plastic-surgery/how-math-shapes-modern-aesthetic-ideals/ https://gotobeauty.com/plastic-surgery/how-math-shapes-moder...
- bluefirebrand 2y ago
  > Coevolution. The AI and the now-famous actor are the end products of a selection process aimed at a similar audience This might hold water if the actor weren't famous for more than a decade before the voice model existed
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - jondwillis 2y ago
    2003’s Lost In Translation opening scene would like a word.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- hluska 2y ago
  If it’s coevolution, why did they try to hire Scarlett Johansson? Why not just stick to their guns that it’s “the most attractive female voice”?
immibis 2y ago
There's already a well established pattern of corporations carefully not writing down things they don't want to be discovered in a lawsuit.

KennyBlanken 2y ago

Non-unique? What? "Passing similarity"? All her friends and coworkers say it sounds like her - she describes being contacted by friends who thought she'd done it. A lot of the public, including HNers, identified the voice as hers, independently - not in some A/B test, but they heard it and said to themselves "Johanasson did the voice for this." You're the only person in the room who thinks OpenAI didn't use samples of her voice for their voice model - or that the voice has "passing similarity." Altman approached her asking her to do it. She refused; they went ahead and did it anyway, probably using interviews since the audio would be very clean - and two days before they went live with it, Altman tried to negotiate a second time and was rebuffed. Released it anyway. Why would Altman feel the need to panic-negotiate a second time, days before they went live, if they hadn't used her voice for it? If OpenAI designed it to sound like her, that's Midler tort. They actually used her voice to train it, which means Midler tort and more. The question will be how much more - I hope they get sued into the ground.

Matticus_Rex 2y ago
> You're the only person in the room who thinks OpenAI didn't use samples of her voice for their voice model Really? No one seems to be claiming that anywhere I've seen. We know that they really did use a voice actress, and that it really is her actual voice, and that she was hired for it before ScarJo was approached. There's no "panic negotiation" there -- the most panic needed would be if someone internally identified that there could be a PR issue if people mistakenly thought it was close enough to seem like intentional impersonation. Of course they wanted ScarJo, once they thought of it! It'd be great publicity. But that doesn't then mean that anyone who sounds somewhat like ScarJo (but certainly not identical) becomes retroactively unusable or makes it vocal impersonation.
- marcus_holmes 2y ago
  > But that doesn't then mean that anyone who sounds somewhat like ScarJo (but certainly not identical) becomes retroactively unusable or makes it vocal impersonation. yes. yes it does. That's what TFA is saying. Waits' case is exactly about this. They hired a singer to make a recording to sound like Waits. OpenAI hired a voice actress with a voice like Her to make their AI sound like Her. And then their CEO tweeted "her". It's that simple.

ano-ther 2y ago

> Note that the Johansson issue is playing out only in the court of public opinion It takes a while to get a lawsuit going. According to the article, Waits learned about the ad on October 3, 1988, filed a suit in November 1988, and the case was tried before a jury in April and May 1990.

Zod666 2y ago

There's another case with bette Midler and I think it was a Superbowl ad. They approached Midler, she said no, they hired a sounds like, she sued and won. With sj, they approached her 6 months ago, she declined, and again just prior to launch to which she didn't respond. And Sam tweets one word 'her'. This is a slam dunk and they will lose.

more_corn 2y ago

Interesting that the OpenAI astroturfing brigade is coming out of the woodwork. You do know of course that they asked to clone her voice. And when she said no did it anyway, then asked again immediately before release, and then Sam tweeted that it was her?

FireBeyond 2y ago
And then when her lawyers ask "So who did supply the voice for this?" they immediately take it down, and immediately hand over a trove of "proof" to WaPo, most of which is so flimsy it'd fall over in a small breeze. Her agent, who has requested anonymity... Tells WaPo that his client, who also "needs to remain anonymous" due to "fears for her safety" tha she told him that OAI "didn't mention SJ". Tells WaPo that she gave him a statement that they can print... What are these fears for the actress' safety that require her, and her agent, to remain anonymous? Why was OAI ready with a trove of legal-reviewed documents to hand to WaPo the moment this blew up?