3 ms·

> 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 u

by 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.

by opello 2y ago

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.