4 ms·
> But that doesn't then mean that anyone who sounds somewhat like ScarJo (but certainly not identical) becomes retroactively unusable or makes it vocal imperson
by 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.
- Matticus_Rex 2y agoFord hired a singer to impersonate Waits in a parody of a Waits song in his exact style. OpenAI hired a voice actress with a pleasant, low, breathy voice who shares a hint of a regional accent with ScarJo to be one of a bunch of voices for their models. Eight months after releasing it, the CEO tweeted "her." It's not illegal to hire someone who sounds a bit like a celebrity for something, and certainly not one who literally sounds more like a different celebrity (Rashida Jones). This isn't a violation of rights of publicity for a number of reasons, but the most dispositive of them is that she doesn't actually sound that much like ScarJo. There's no vocal fry! That's the most distinctive part of her voice!
- more_corn 2y agoI hate to commit the fallacy of ad hominem, but I wonder if you’re being deliberately obtuse.
- Matticus_Rex 2y agoI'd guess it's that I'm approaching the question like a lawyer, which, while appropriate for legal questions, often reads as obtuse.