4 ms·

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 p

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."
- vessenes 2y ago
  I agree; one's voice should be protected, generally. However, I do not agree that one should be able to stamp out use of any voice one person deems 'too similar' from plying that trade. This would be pretty surprising; it raises numerous questions of fair play, who decides, whether the courts wish to be in the position of making these determinations, and ultimately, I think the balance of equity is against making a broad decision like this, full stop. People have the right to work, and especially have the right to work in a fair environment where they are not unduly taking advantage of other's rights and trademarks. Marilyn Monroe did not have rights to ban women from blonde curls, or beauty marks, Bettie Page did not have the ability to stop numerous lookalikes from selling pinup photos; this is the same situation.
vessenes 2y ago
So, to be clear, I think you could launch a company that was like "It's 100% exactly as good as the movie Her. Seen the movie Her? This is like that AI. You can download it here", and not legally owe a penny. The concept of the AI in Her is not something that the makers of the film own, and companies are inspired by creative works of all sorts all the time when they make things. This is considered good in American business law. Agreed that an endorsement, express or implied, is usually something the endorser has rights over. So, in this case, from your perspective, you'd need to prove that people understood such an endorsement to have happened, and if you want damages, that it benefitted the company and/or harmed the endorser. On these terms, the facts we know don't seem terrible for OpenAI - they negotiated in good faith for the endorsement, and when she went public / gave a final 'no' they pulled the voice, which apparently was not created by a copycat voice actor, but instead by another woman that SJ claims sounds identical to her. OpenAI has not summarily fallen over or gone bankrupt, in fact, the app that caused controversy hasn't launched yet.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  Personality rights in California also cover the right to persona, as in a specific person acting as a specific character. You can sound like ScarJo to some extent, but ScarJo does own her performance of Her and anything like that. Daniel Craig is allowed to be James Bond, but Daniel Craig is not allowed to pretend to be Sean Connery playing James Bond. And of course there can be impersonators, but there is a world of difference between hiring an impersonator for the express purpose of impersonating where everyone knows that is the case, vs. hiring an impersonator to imply commercial endorsement from the original person. A commercial endorsement does not require that it be the sole form of endorsement or that it even be financially positive. Ford was running more than one ad campaign when Bette Midler sued and won, and Frito Lay was in a similar boat with Tom Waits.
  - vessenes 2y ago
    Yes to all this. Where we are at right now is: guy with scottish accent is available in an app and his name is "Clay". Owner of app tweets how Bond was inspiring to him making the app. If it can be shown in court that Sky is an impersonation and that SJ is ruled to have endorsed whether through tweets from Sam, or the Sky voice, and that she suffered some damage or that OpenAI benefited in some way before taking it down, then I think she would likely win some money in damages. Unless all those are true, it seems tough to get more than she already got -- a quick removal of the voice. Few people mention the existing Sky voice actor (whose agent has held her name for safety concerns) is harmed here, quite substantially, by the idea that SJ could control her own performance. At any rate, my point at the top of all this is just that this is not 'open and shut' and I'm not even sure OpenAI has been more than 'aggressive' so far in its launch; we might found out they were, but I don't think the facts on the ground show more than that right now.

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."
vessenes 2y ago
I agree; one's voice should be protected, generally. However, I do not agree that one should be able to stamp out use of any voice one person deems 'too similar' from plying that trade. This would be pretty surprising; it raises numerous questions of fair play, who decides, whether the courts wish to be in the position of making these determinations, and ultimately, I think the balance of equity is against making a broad decision like this, full stop. People have the right to work, and especially have the right to work in a fair environment where they are not unduly taking advantage of other's rights and trademarks. Marilyn Monroe did not have rights to ban women from blonde curls, or beauty marks, Bettie Page did not have the ability to stop numerous lookalikes from selling pinup photos; this is the same situation.

vessenes 2y ago

So, to be clear, I think you could launch a company that was like "It's 100% exactly as good as the movie Her. Seen the movie Her? This is like that AI. You can download it here", and not legally owe a penny. The concept of the AI in Her is not something that the makers of the film own, and companies are inspired by creative works of all sorts all the time when they make things. This is considered good in American business law. Agreed that an endorsement, express or implied, is usually something the endorser has rights over. So, in this case, from your perspective, you'd need to prove that people understood such an endorsement to have happened, and if you want damages, that it benefitted the company and/or harmed the endorser. On these terms, the facts we know don't seem terrible for OpenAI - they negotiated in good faith for the endorsement, and when she went public / gave a final 'no' they pulled the voice, which apparently was not created by a copycat voice actor, but instead by another woman that SJ claims sounds identical to her. OpenAI has not summarily fallen over or gone bankrupt, in fact, the app that caused controversy hasn't launched yet.

bobthepanda 2y ago
Personality rights in California also cover the right to persona, as in a specific person acting as a specific character. You can sound like ScarJo to some extent, but ScarJo does own her performance of Her and anything like that. Daniel Craig is allowed to be James Bond, but Daniel Craig is not allowed to pretend to be Sean Connery playing James Bond. And of course there can be impersonators, but there is a world of difference between hiring an impersonator for the express purpose of impersonating where everyone knows that is the case, vs. hiring an impersonator to imply commercial endorsement from the original person. A commercial endorsement does not require that it be the sole form of endorsement or that it even be financially positive. Ford was running more than one ad campaign when Bette Midler sued and won, and Frito Lay was in a similar boat with Tom Waits.
- vessenes 2y ago
  Yes to all this. Where we are at right now is: guy with scottish accent is available in an app and his name is "Clay". Owner of app tweets how Bond was inspiring to him making the app. If it can be shown in court that Sky is an impersonation and that SJ is ruled to have endorsed whether through tweets from Sam, or the Sky voice, and that she suffered some damage or that OpenAI benefited in some way before taking it down, then I think she would likely win some money in damages. Unless all those are true, it seems tough to get more than she already got -- a quick removal of the voice. Few people mention the existing Sky voice actor (whose agent has held her name for safety concerns) is harmed here, quite substantially, by the idea that SJ could control her own performance. At any rate, my point at the top of all this is just that this is not 'open and shut' and I'm not even sure OpenAI has been more than 'aggressive' so far in its launch; we might found out they were, but I don't think the facts on the ground show more than that right now.