3 ms·

I’m mystified as to two things here: first that people feel this is ‘open and shut’ in Ms Johannsen’s favor, and second that this hasn’t been settled economical

I’m mystified as to two things here: first that people feel this is ‘open and shut’ in Ms Johannsen’s favor, and second that this hasn’t been settled economically. IF: OpenAI had advertised SJ as being a voice, had sold the plus subscription with that voice as a benefit, and had instructed talent scouting and internal editors to ‘copy her’ then this would be open and shut. We know for sure the first part did not happen: if there’s a case then discovery will tell us the second part. If on the other hand they chose the voice for sky because they liked the actors natural voice, whether or not it was because they were reminded of SJ that is anything but open and shut- in fact it seems very difficult to me; a judge must determine that another actor cannot work at all, even if she makes no attempt to sound alike, sell as SJ, all through a platform that shows undeniable value regardless of voice. Guys, SJ is beautiful and likable. But this is a big ask of a credible federal judge. As to money, I’m also mystified why they can’t ink a deal like: the largest single film voice acting payment is roughly $15mm. Let’s do a deal where we use your actual voice (which I would say is obviously different than sky) and rev share 50/50 with you on premium purchases, 50mm guaranteed year one. It seems to me like this would open up the best possible world where people can have gpt4o talk with the voice of whatever actor that’s licensed, and these actors have a new distribution vehicle that’s valuable. Again SJ may not want to license for whatever reason she chooses, but I bet that OpenAI didn’t make a serious rev share offer, and I think they should.

mateus1 2y ago
It’s not just a matter of the voice being a 1:1 match with Johansenns’s or that it used it as an input to build the model. What is definitive is that Open AI intently based this on the film Her as per docs and tweets && they used her voice similarity after being declined more than once.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
tsimionescu 2y ago
For the first part, you're forgetting the "her" tweet, and the attempts of getting SJ to sell them her voice as recently as two days before they launched her sound-alike. And we know they thought it's a soundalike because they immediately changed it once the scandal started. For the second part, you're assuming that they just didn't offer enough money. It's very likely instead that SJ didn't want to associate her brand with this business.
- michaelbuckbee 2y ago
  To add on to your comment, in the arts and creative space there are substantial levels of opposition to AI as it's perceived as a job killer and maybe at some level perverse or akin to an automated plagiarism system that steals their intellectual property (this is complicated and not my personal take, but I see where they're coming from). It's quite likely that SJ would suffer from severe reputational damage from being the literal voice of AI.
- vessenes 2y ago
  I'm not forgetting "Her", and I think it's in-bounds to say a company is inspired by / referencing a film in PR -- I can list quite a few SV startups that directly tie their DNA to an inspiring book or film, and heretofore that's generally not considered objectionable. (For instance, Paypal / Cryptonomicon). The sky voice has been part of the app since the launch, it was not newly launched for GPT4o. You're missing a key step in your logic chain: That they pulled the voice when SJ made a public complaint does not imply that they thought it was a soundalike, or that they documented they were making a soundalike, or that a soundalike is wrong, or that they thought they were doing something wrong when they hired the Sky voice actor. It just means that they pulled the Sky voice on public request from SJ. That, combined with SJ reports that she turned down a licensing deal, and WaPo reporting that the Sky voice actor sounds like the voice delivered in ChatGPT, are pretty much the only facts we have right now. As to SJ brand decisions -- maybe. I would bet the offer was low / not discussed, instead of it being substantial. But, that is also speculation.
bobthepanda 2y ago
commercial benefit for copyright is not limited to literally selling things but also covers ads and publicity. the legal system may be asked to consider if a press release for a new model counts as advertising, and if implying a connection to Her was a significant part of said advertisement. the fact that it does not cost money does not make it legal. PETA can't go around running its mouth saying "Beyonce supports PETA and banning pets" when she's said no such thing.
- williamcotton 2y ago
  A voice seems to be covered by trademark as opposed to copyright. Two people can naturally have a very similar voice and it would be pretty absurd to have someone not allowed to use their own voice. It isn’t absurd for someone in a specific industry to have their voice protected within that trade.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    Publicity rights are distinct from both copyright and trademark. In California, they basically have the same protections, lifetime + 70 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Celebrities_Rights_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Celebrities_Rights_... In 1988, Midler v. Ford Motor Co was decided in favor of Bette Midler after Ford hired an impersonator for their commercials. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co. Tom Waits won a lawsuit against Frito Lay for a radio commercial where they hired a impersonator. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-09-me-238-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-09-me-238-st...
    - vessenes 2y ago
      I'm aware of both of those -- this voice actor is not a "Johannsen sound-alike" actor. And she is not reciting lines from "Her". It's a significant difference, and there are real harms to any actor not already 'famous' implied by the sort of ruling people here think is obvious -- it's a big leap to say "The Federal Government will not allow you to work because you sound too much like X and so other person, signed, Judge Alsop."
opello 2y ago
On the sound alike front it seems like attribution must resolve this since it can't possibly be reasonable to deny access to the marketplace of voice work because someone else that you sound like "got there first"?
- vessenes 2y ago
  Exactly.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ml-anon 2y ago
Why the fuck would one of the most famous people on the planet who is already phenomenally wealthy want to be the voice of a company that has already maligned her for an application that people are already demonstrating the use of to have sexually explicit conversations. Anyone signing up to your revenue sharing scheme is going to be all over the internet saying the most vile things imaginable.

mateus1 2y ago

It’s not just a matter of the voice being a 1:1 match with Johansenns’s or that it used it as an input to build the model. What is definitive is that Open AI intently based this on the film Her as per docs and tweets && they used her voice similarity after being declined more than once.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

tsimionescu 2y ago

For the first part, you're forgetting the "her" tweet, and the attempts of getting SJ to sell them her voice as recently as two days before they launched her sound-alike. And we know they thought it's a soundalike because they immediately changed it once the scandal started. For the second part, you're assuming that they just didn't offer enough money. It's very likely instead that SJ didn't want to associate her brand with this business.

michaelbuckbee 2y ago
To add on to your comment, in the arts and creative space there are substantial levels of opposition to AI as it's perceived as a job killer and maybe at some level perverse or akin to an automated plagiarism system that steals their intellectual property (this is complicated and not my personal take, but I see where they're coming from). It's quite likely that SJ would suffer from severe reputational damage from being the literal voice of AI.
vessenes 2y ago
I'm not forgetting "Her", and I think it's in-bounds to say a company is inspired by / referencing a film in PR -- I can list quite a few SV startups that directly tie their DNA to an inspiring book or film, and heretofore that's generally not considered objectionable. (For instance, Paypal / Cryptonomicon). The sky voice has been part of the app since the launch, it was not newly launched for GPT4o. You're missing a key step in your logic chain: That they pulled the voice when SJ made a public complaint does not imply that they thought it was a soundalike, or that they documented they were making a soundalike, or that a soundalike is wrong, or that they thought they were doing something wrong when they hired the Sky voice actor. It just means that they pulled the Sky voice on public request from SJ. That, combined with SJ reports that she turned down a licensing deal, and WaPo reporting that the Sky voice actor sounds like the voice delivered in ChatGPT, are pretty much the only facts we have right now. As to SJ brand decisions -- maybe. I would bet the offer was low / not discussed, instead of it being substantial. But, that is also speculation.

bobthepanda 2y ago

commercial benefit for copyright is not limited to literally selling things but also covers ads and publicity. the legal system may be asked to consider if a press release for a new model counts as advertising, and if implying a connection to Her was a significant part of said advertisement. the fact that it does not cost money does not make it legal. PETA can't go around running its mouth saying "Beyonce supports PETA and banning pets" when she's said no such thing.

williamcotton 2y ago
A voice seems to be covered by trademark as opposed to copyright. Two people can naturally have a very similar voice and it would be pretty absurd to have someone not allowed to use their own voice. It isn’t absurd for someone in a specific industry to have their voice protected within that trade.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  Publicity rights are distinct from both copyright and trademark. In California, they basically have the same protections, lifetime + 70 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Celebrities_Rights_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Celebrities_Rights_... In 1988, Midler v. Ford Motor Co was decided in favor of Bette Midler after Ford hired an impersonator for their commercials. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co. Tom Waits won a lawsuit against Frito Lay for a radio commercial where they hired a impersonator. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-09-me-238-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-09-me-238-st...
  - vessenes 2y ago
    I'm aware of both of those -- this voice actor is not a "Johannsen sound-alike" actor. And she is not reciting lines from "Her". It's a significant difference, and there are real harms to any actor not already 'famous' implied by the sort of ruling people here think is obvious -- it's a big leap to say "The Federal Government will not allow you to work because you sound too much like X and so other person, signed, Judge Alsop."

opello 2y ago

On the sound alike front it seems like attribution must resolve this since it can't possibly be reasonable to deny access to the marketplace of voice work because someone else that you sound like "got there first"?

vessenes 2y ago
Exactly.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ml-anon 2y ago

Why the fuck would one of the most famous people on the planet who is already phenomenally wealthy want to be the voice of a company that has already maligned her for an application that people are already demonstrating the use of to have sexually explicit conversations. Anyone signing up to your revenue sharing scheme is going to be all over the internet saying the most vile things imaginable.