3 ms·

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 spec

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.
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    > According to your argument... I wasn't making one.
freejazz 2y ago
I didn't say her case was obvious. I said there are obviously two categories of types of conduct, one falling into a legal category and one falling into an illegal category. My observation is that much of the discussion here seems to not even acknowledge the reality that Right of Publicity laws exist and what they entail. That really has nothing to do with whether or not her case is good. Your response here seems to further my point, in that you completely run past that and instead debate the specifics (which we don't all know and aren't all privy to, and would be the disputed facts in any potential litigation).

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.
- CRConrad 2y ago
  > According to your argument... I wasn't making one.

freejazz 2y ago

I didn't say her case was obvious. I said there are obviously two categories of types of conduct, one falling into a legal category and one falling into an illegal category. My observation is that much of the discussion here seems to not even acknowledge the reality that Right of Publicity laws exist and what they entail. That really has nothing to do with whether or not her case is good. Your response here seems to further my point, in that you completely run past that and instead debate the specifics (which we don't all know and aren't all privy to, and would be the disputed facts in any potential litigation).