4 ms·

> If guilty, will it be illegal for people sounding like famous people get voice work ? It continues to baffle me that people formulate this issue as it just b

> If guilty, will it be illegal for people sounding like famous people get voice work ? It continues to baffle me that people formulate this issue as it just being about the similar voices as opposed to OpenAI's efforts to capitalize on ScarJo's likeness by making explicit references to ScarJo and her work, in combination with using a similar voice. Obviously, it is not against the law to have a similar voice as someone. Obviously, it is against the law to capitalize upon another person's likeness without their permission. I don't understand why people pretend it's hard to distinguish between the two categories, it's not.

vessenes 2y ago
Just to be clear here, which of these two circumstances do you believe is at play in the johannsen v OpenAI dispute?
opello 2y ago
> Obviously, it is against the law to capitalize upon another person's likeness without their permission. This seems similar to MikeRoweSoft.com[1] which was ultimately settled instead of being tested in court. Maybe closer, does this line of thinking mean that the twins Mary-Kate and Ashley Olson[2] couldn't have distinct professional acting careers without one another's explicit permission because of their similarity (capitalized on for Full House) as one would necessarily infringe on the likeness of the other? That seems like a bridge too far. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary-Kate_and_Ashley_Olsen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary-Kate_and_Ashley_Olsen
- freejazz 2y ago
  >Maybe closer, does this line of thinking mean that the twins Mary-Kate and Ashley Olson[2] couldn't have distinct professional acting careers without one another's explicit permission because of their similarity (capitalized on for Full House) as one would necessarily infringe on the likeness of the other? That seems like a bridge too far. What line of thinking? Right of publicity laws are not new. If one of the twins purported to be the other, yes, why wouldn't the other twin have a claim? What is controversial about that?
  - opello 2y ago
    > If one of the twins purported to be the other, yes, why wouldn't the other twin have a claim? I agree that attribution is key. Since identical twins are often confused, the issue resolves itself with credit. But absent some attribution or credit, it seems like there would be a similar problem in the case of twins. This seems like why credits in works of entertainment are particularly important. I'm just left wondering if OpenAI discloses who provided the voice and that person isn't prohibited from entering the marketplace of "voice work" (which would seem unfair?) then it seems like this would fizzle out?
    - freejazz 2y ago
      IMO it has no bearing who did the voice, the issue is if OpenAI intended to confuse people by associating the similar voice with ScarJo through their marketing. The issue isn't the voice confusion on its own, it's that OpenAI is inducing it by bringing up ScarJo and her work in their marketing of the voice product. ScarJo obviously doesn't care about the individual voice actress, the voice actress would not have sufficient money to cover any damages ScarJo would allege, especially in comparison to a well-capitalized company like OpenAI. Let's use our heads for a second.
amanaplanacanal 2y ago
“Obviously” isn’t really a legal argument, though.
- freejazz 2y ago
  I'm not making a legal argument, I'm discussing the absolutely awful intuitions constantly being put forth in the discussion of this potential case on HN.
Maxatar 2y ago
Because it's not obvious and just using that word over and over again doesn't make it true. Did OpenAI want to use a similar voice to Scarlett Johansson's specifically because it's her, and they want to capitalize off of her fame or her personhood specifically? Or did OpenAI want to use a voice that sounds pleasant and appealing and as it so happens Scarlett Johansson has just such a voice and used such a voice in a famous movie about a talking AI? In other words, if Scarlett Johansson had a different voice, perhaps even an unappealing one, would they still have used it because it's something particular about her fame and character they wanted to leverage, or did they use a similar sounding voice to hers because of the technical qualities of that voice that she happens to have and which has been demonstrated by her to be effective. There are many other potential scenarios that one can argue are relevant to this case, and ultimately my point is that this case isn't obvious unless you come to it with an opinion already made up and have failed to appreciate the numerous points of view.
- CRConrad 2y ago
  > In other words, if Scarlett Johansson had a different voice, perhaps even an unappealing one, would they still have used it Not what you meant, but: No, of course not, because then Johansson wouldn't have been in Her.
  - Maxatar 2y ago
    Right, but one can imagine a popular film about AI casting a voice actor not because the voice actor has an appealing or soothing voice, but because the actor is themselves very popular and will draw a large audience. Perhaps say Arnold Schwarzenegger is cast and OpenAI decides to create a voice very similar to the one Arnold uses in that movie because OpenAI wants to leverage the fame associated with that movie, that character, or Arnold himself. In that case the argument would be very strong that OpenAI is taking advantage of personality rights as opposed to mimicking a nice sounding voice that suits their product. According to your argument, Scarlett Johansson was not cast in Her because something about her personhood would draw audiences to the movie, or something about her personality and character was being leveraged, but rather that her voice has some nice technical properties that made it a suitable choice for the movie. In that case, the argument is less strong that OpenAI is infringing on Scarlett's personality rights, and more the case that they liked the properties and qualities that her voice has, and when she specifically turned down the offer to lend her voice to OpenAI, OpenAI found someone else who had similar properties and qualities as a replacement.
surfingdino 2y ago
Because women's objections are ignored and women are expected to provide more proof than men. Scarlett Johansson is the third woman so far who made it clear that she is not happy with Altman's/OpenAI's conduct, but they all are being asked to provide more proof of harm done. In case you missed it--his sister made serious allegations and was ignored; then a female board member went public with her reasons for resigning and people say its sour grapes; and now Scarlett Johansson is objecting to Altman suggesting that it was her voice even after he was told that she is not interested in working with OpenAI.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  His mentally ill sister that the entire family says is lying, about something that allegedly happened when he was a small pre-pubescent child himself. And plenty of people are not attacking either the board member or Scarlett Johansson. Public opinion is at least definitely with SJ. This really has nothing to do with how women are treated.

vessenes 2y ago

Just to be clear here, which of these two circumstances do you believe is at play in the johannsen v OpenAI dispute?

opello 2y ago

> Obviously, it is against the law to capitalize upon another person's likeness without their permission. This seems similar to MikeRoweSoft.com[1] which was ultimately settled instead of being tested in court. Maybe closer, does this line of thinking mean that the twins Mary-Kate and Ashley Olson[2] couldn't have distinct professional acting careers without one another's explicit permission because of their similarity (capitalized on for Full House) as one would necessarily infringe on the likeness of the other? That seems like a bridge too far. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary-Kate_and_Ashley_Olsen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary-Kate_and_Ashley_Olsen

freejazz 2y ago
>Maybe closer, does this line of thinking mean that the twins Mary-Kate and Ashley Olson[2] couldn't have distinct professional acting careers without one another's explicit permission because of their similarity (capitalized on for Full House) as one would necessarily infringe on the likeness of the other? That seems like a bridge too far. What line of thinking? Right of publicity laws are not new. If one of the twins purported to be the other, yes, why wouldn't the other twin have a claim? What is controversial about that?
- opello 2y ago
  > If one of the twins purported to be the other, yes, why wouldn't the other twin have a claim? I agree that attribution is key. Since identical twins are often confused, the issue resolves itself with credit. But absent some attribution or credit, it seems like there would be a similar problem in the case of twins. This seems like why credits in works of entertainment are particularly important. I'm just left wondering if OpenAI discloses who provided the voice and that person isn't prohibited from entering the marketplace of "voice work" (which would seem unfair?) then it seems like this would fizzle out?
  - freejazz 2y ago
    IMO it has no bearing who did the voice, the issue is if OpenAI intended to confuse people by associating the similar voice with ScarJo through their marketing. The issue isn't the voice confusion on its own, it's that OpenAI is inducing it by bringing up ScarJo and her work in their marketing of the voice product. ScarJo obviously doesn't care about the individual voice actress, the voice actress would not have sufficient money to cover any damages ScarJo would allege, especially in comparison to a well-capitalized company like OpenAI. Let's use our heads for a second.

amanaplanacanal 2y ago

“Obviously” isn’t really a legal argument, though.

freejazz 2y ago
I'm not making a legal argument, I'm discussing the absolutely awful intuitions constantly being put forth in the discussion of this potential case on HN.

Maxatar 2y ago

Because it's not obvious and just using that word over and over again doesn't make it true. Did OpenAI want to use a similar voice to Scarlett Johansson's specifically because it's her, and they want to capitalize off of her fame or her personhood specifically? Or did OpenAI want to use a voice that sounds pleasant and appealing and as it so happens Scarlett Johansson has just such a voice and used such a voice in a famous movie about a talking AI? In other words, if Scarlett Johansson had a different voice, perhaps even an unappealing one, would they still have used it because it's something particular about her fame and character they wanted to leverage, or did they use a similar sounding voice to hers because of the technical qualities of that voice that she happens to have and which has been demonstrated by her to be effective. There are many other potential scenarios that one can argue are relevant to this case, and ultimately my point is that this case isn't obvious unless you come to it with an opinion already made up and have failed to appreciate the numerous points of view.

CRConrad 2y ago
> In other words, if Scarlett Johansson had a different voice, perhaps even an unappealing one, would they still have used it Not what you meant, but: No, of course not, because then Johansson wouldn't have been in Her.
- Maxatar 2y ago
  Right, but one can imagine a popular film about AI casting a voice actor not because the voice actor has an appealing or soothing voice, but because the actor is themselves very popular and will draw a large audience. Perhaps say Arnold Schwarzenegger is cast and OpenAI decides to create a voice very similar to the one Arnold uses in that movie because OpenAI wants to leverage the fame associated with that movie, that character, or Arnold himself. In that case the argument would be very strong that OpenAI is taking advantage of personality rights as opposed to mimicking a nice sounding voice that suits their product. According to your argument, Scarlett Johansson was not cast in Her because something about her personhood would draw audiences to the movie, or something about her personality and character was being leveraged, but rather that her voice has some nice technical properties that made it a suitable choice for the movie. In that case, the argument is less strong that OpenAI is infringing on Scarlett's personality rights, and more the case that they liked the properties and qualities that her voice has, and when she specifically turned down the offer to lend her voice to OpenAI, OpenAI found someone else who had similar properties and qualities as a replacement.

surfingdino 2y ago

Because women's objections are ignored and women are expected to provide more proof than men. Scarlett Johansson is the third woman so far who made it clear that she is not happy with Altman's/OpenAI's conduct, but they all are being asked to provide more proof of harm done. In case you missed it--his sister made serious allegations and was ignored; then a female board member went public with her reasons for resigning and people say its sour grapes; and now Scarlett Johansson is objecting to Altman suggesting that it was her voice even after he was told that she is not interested in working with OpenAI.

tsimionescu 2y ago
His mentally ill sister that the entire family says is lying, about something that allegedly happened when he was a small pre-pubescent child himself. And plenty of people are not attacking either the board member or Scarlett Johansson. Public opinion is at least definitely with SJ. This really has nothing to do with how women are treated.