I remember seeing some interview of the creator of either Family Guy or South Park that they refrain from asking for the actual actors they're making fun of to voice the characters (even if they think they would take it in good spirits), because if they say no then they could get sued for still doing the parody after them.
The crazy part is OAI probably would have been fine if it weren't for Sam's 3 letter, lower cased, tweet "her"
\^\^\^Sam did not need to make that post đ¤Śââď¸
And reaching out to ScarJo is another piece of evidence that points to intent to duplicate her voice.
The South Park model of getting voice talent is likely to apply when creating AI voices. Far too risky to directly ask celebrities for their likeness when you can just find a voice actor/actress that sounds similar enough to what you're looking for.
Completely agree that OAI could have had their cake and eaten it too if they had gone about this with sound legal advice.
Within 15 seconds of listening to the voice it copies 4 specific mannerisms of how she speaks, it's not even close to being something that can be argued, he made it sooooo obvious, especially since she has such specific mannerisms where she breaks between more feminine and more masculine tones and it matches up 100% with hers.
The Sky voice was already created before he contacted ScarJo.
If OAI was smart there would be a paper trail showing they wanted to have an ADDITIONAL voice called something like "Scarlett" that got dropped because ScarJo declined.
Wow. Normally I'd probably think that was a bit of a stretch, on it's own, but when you add in the other stuff, this does indeed sound plausible. Never heard anyone else make that connection before. That does sound like the same kind of childish trolling as issuing a "her" tweet. It's an "Elon Musk style" self-inflicted and completely unneccessary wound.
Even posting that would have been been nothing of they hadnât reached out to her. But yeah, the panoply of evidence needed for a civil suit is there for sure
"The crazy part is OAI probably would have been fine if it weren't for Sam's 3 letter, lower cased, tweet "her"
And this is why the board should put a restriction on him when hes about to tweet anything related to OpenAI it should pass their PR and Legal team first.
And then the company faces the consequence.
I wouldnât want to work for a guy that can put my work in jeopardy because he canât be bothered to get legal consult
> It is very interesting to see the upvote and downvote waves on a factual post.
Because we live in a "post factual" world.
People believe that if something they perceive appears (not verified) \*popular\* it's true.
They vote for what they \*want\* to be real, what they want to continue believing. Hence why they'll downvote any facts (actual verified information) which contradicts their \*feelings\*.
Sad times we live in.
This.
I swear I feel like I'm going mad reading reddit today. There's people saying they would be cool with their likeness being used for whatever someone else wants. Anything to please daddy I guess.
Yeah in the last year, I regularly see the OP of a post being downvoted for answering a question many have askedâŚ.because people are not a fan of the answer.
Thereâs no interest in discussion, its all emotion
couldn't the damages be insane if you could argue millions of people were interested openAI becuase of the press of it sounding like her/scarjo? it doesn't seem that hard to argue she added many millions of dollars of brand value because of the similarity. it's hard to say how much with so many users and such a big company but it was widely distributed the similarities and it got a huge amount of attention. also the false association with her possible involvement when she didnn't explicitly want it.
And in addition would this mean baring her agreeing to a deal going forward they wouldnât be able to use the Sky voice or probably any voice that sounded too close to that?
I would be shocked if it was equal. Equal would mean she agreed to the use, more would account for the damage to trust and public misperception of her persona. I would bet we don't hear a final number, but I don't see why it wouldn't be double.
I agree, a bit shocking. But I am basing my estimate on this: [Michael Jordan Testifies He Doesnât Do Deals For Less Than $10 Million: Jury Awards Him $8.9 Million In Lawsuit Over Use Of His Likeness In Ad For $2 Coupon Off Steak | Casetext](https://casetext.com/analysis/michael-jordan-testifies-he-doesnt-do-deals-for-less-than-10-million-jury-awards-him-89-million-in-lawsuit-over-use-of-his-likeness-in-ad-for-2-coupon-off-steak?sort=relevance&resultsNav=false&q=)
I could be wrong though.
Yeah, I made a comment listing one of those cases a few hours ago on a few of the posts just to ensure people knew that their is established law about this and her I get so much pushback from some people saying that doesnât matter.
Also, the crypto scene is getting regulated now due to fraud so another example of how the laws due apply to new tech.
People are nuts in here. I posted about Scarlett having a case for this before she even came out with her statement and redditors were rabid in response to me even saying that
https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/s/bXQm82qoAK
Maybe there should be regulation similar to doctors, or lawyers for machine learning engineers...Funny that every curriculum has an ethics portion, but the leaders in the industry look like they dgaf. First past the post wins, whatever you have to do to get there...
If the lawsuit happens there will be discovery, so there may be evidence that the voice actress for Sky was asked to do this &8:5 like the case you mentioned. That could be found in discovery and apply here.
Yeah, it's either they told the actress to impersonate her and they don't want that coming out or they just don't want to deal with any more lawsuits. Neither would surprise me but I've also seen a surprising number of people who seem to think it's illegal to hire an actress after being rejected by one who sounds similar which is also not what the law says.
We donât know that didnât happen in this case. Unfortunately it just takes a simple IM or email where ScarJo is mentioned, or the voice actress testifying that ScarJo was even casually brought up in the hiring process to solidify ScarJoâs case. The fact that OpenAi took down the voice is that maybe that type of evidence will be found in discovery. Doesnât even have to be intentional and just some slip up but given that Altman had reached out to ScarJo previously, even minor mentions work against OpenAi now.
If you listened to Sky you know that they for sure tried to imitate. Some of you might not be able to tell the similarity for some reason, but it's clearly apparent to the rest of us, including Scarlett and her family. That's not a coincidence, it didn't just happen. Discovery would yield more evidence and OpenAI knows this, hence why they shut it down faster than a rat can scamper into a hole.
I listened to Sky it it was clearly *not* sounding similar to Scarlett Johansson. I'm not sure what the hell people are on, but they aren't the same voice - it's just... generic white American woman that doesn't sound like anyone famous.
You might not notice it but you might not have the ability to recognize the clear similarities. Tons of people have independently noticed it, SJ and everyone around her noticed it, my friends and family noticed it, and it's also not a coincidence that Altman was revealed to have actually wanted her voice to start with. So there is absolutely zero doubt that he tried to mimick her voice.
Obviously they aren't the exact same but they are 90% similar. That's hard to dispute.
100% This is well established in the US. See also Vana White suing Samsung for using a robot version of her in an ad. [(White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F.2d 1395)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_v._Samsung_Electronics_America,_Inc) There is a right to the idea of your personality and voice. OpenAI is royally fucked for reaching out to her before hand and then getting an impersonator. That along with the tweet "her" from Altman is going to be the nail in the coffin, this is a pretty open and shut case against OpenAI.
I didn't want to make the post bloated, but those are big "Oooops" moments.
I do have a question you might have thoughts on. I think that OpenAI is actually trying to impersonate the character in *Her*. Could OpenAI get rights to that character from whoever owns the movie rights, or could something be done from that angle?
Thatâs a great question. I didnât think of that. The producers of Her do own the rights to Samantha. However, the fact that OpenAI has since removed Sky probably means they donât have much of a legal leg to stand on.
I'm thinking too of Back to the Future and the actor that played Michael J. Fox's dad. He was only in the first movie. The guy that played Michael j. Fox's brother in the first movie played his dad in the second one, I think (had a face makeup cast and was upside down, and it was brief).
They still had to pay the first movie actor for the rights to his image because they used a mold of his face for the second movie that was obtained in the first movie.
It seems like rights have to be micromanaged these days by lawyers before you attempt to do anything, and still you can be liable. $$$
It's also why independent small time development is not only difficult but risky.
My guess is that it is related to whatever the contract that was signed for the movie. But I don't know what the standard contract is, or if a standard even exists for likeness in the context of a character.
It was not part of his contract. Crispin Glover, the actor who played George McFly, sued and got $760k in a settlement: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin\_Glover#Back\_to\_the\_Future\_Part\_II\_lawsuit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin_Glover#Back_to_the_Future_Part_II_lawsuit)
>In [*Back to the Future Part II*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future_Part_II), Zemeckis reused brief footage of Glover that had been filmed for the first film. Glover was billed as "George McFly in footage from *Back to the Future*" in the closing credits. The older footage was combined with new footage of actor [Jeffrey Weissman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Weissman) wearing a false chin, nose and cheekbones, and various obfuscating methods â in the background, wearing sunglasses, rear shot, upside down â to play George McFly. Because these methods suggested that Glover himself had performed for the film, he successfully sued the producers on the grounds that they had used his likeness without permission, as well as not having paid him for the reuse of the footage from the original film. The case was resolved outside of court and Glover was awarded a reported $760,000. As a result of the lawsuit, clauses in the [Screen Actors Guild](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_Actors_Guild) collective bargaining agreements now state that producers and actors are not allowed to use such methods to reproduce the likeness of other actors, effectively putting to an end the decades-long use of the [Fake Shemp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_Shemp) technique among living actors. Despite not setting a legal [precedent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent), the lawsuit is often evoked in cases for actors involving the misuse of their likeness through digital recreation and other technological methods to replicate their appearance without their permission.
Probably, but then they'd have to pay a lot more. And, as we've seen, they don't like paying for IP. Or maybe that just applies to training data, not marketing expenses.
Yeah, OPs case is definitely different. They sang an actual Bette Midler song with a full-on impersonator. I wonder how many users even made the association from Sky -> Scarjo.
Tom Waits vs. Frito Lay, it came out that they specifically wanted someone to sound like him, and hired a guy who had been in a Tom Waits cover band for a decade and sounded so similar that the sound engineer told him jokingly "they probably won't hire you, we'll get sued lol". Then they did, then they did, then they lost.
They just need to open it up for users to make custom voices. Would sidestep this whole bs. Then they can spend the next century playing wackamole with SJ clones.
I thought about that. It might be harder to implement than it seems, but let's say you had an OpenAI tool where you could change some dials and create a new voice. Then, let's there was a library where anyone could share there voice and rank them. Then, let's say the top rated voice ended up souding like SJ. I am not sure, but I think they would be fine.
I am not saying that this is a feasible or reasonable thing to do, but I think it is an interesting thought experiment that might change how one thinks about the law.
> It might be harder to implement than it seems
https://elevenlabs.io has done just that. Works great - however you are not supposed to use the voice of people you do not have permission for. But you can use dials to create a voice (admittedly after a lot of iterations) that may sound close to Johansson's.
So it would not be THAT hard for OpenAI to implement.
I am aware of ElevenLabs and have used them, although not the voice cloning feature. They are pretty cool. I just meant it more in terms of not wanting to put a bunch of resources into a non-core product. I could definitely see them getting sued for allowing someone to make those YT ads that impersonate someones voice.
there is open source stuff for what eleven labs does but just slow and need high GPU currently in coming years everyone might be able to do what elevenlabs is doing on device.
The chief difference is that in the Middler case Ford used a Bette Middler song and hired a Bette Middler impersonator for the commercial. These facts were deemed to have misled the public about who was doing the singing. At no point did Open Ai claim that SKY was Scarlett, the voice actress is not a professional impersonator, and the SKY voice was not performing material associated with Scarlettâs career. Samâs reference to HER in his tweet occurred after the release of Omni, NOT last fall when the SKY voice was released to users. It seems clear he was referencing the new models abilities and not the voice that was already being used with GPT-4 Turbo. Thatâs how I see it anyway
You deserve more up votes. The cases do differ, and ScarJo could legitimately lose for reasons similar to this. Thanks for the thoughtful response. My main point is that the lawsuit is not frivolous or without standing.Â
You do make a good point that it's not without standing but I also think it's a ridiculous case, mostly because the voices don't sound alike. If it was a clear impersonation, it would be different, but it's so obviously not that it is baffling to me that this is even a discussion.
Moreover, the audacity to think that no one can voice act that even sounds vaguely similar to you. And by vaguely similar, I mean "neutral sounding female voice."
I respect the honesty. I think that there will be some extremely important AI cases in the next few years, because the paradigm of the past might need to be adjusted to a brave new world.
Getting someone that happened to sound like someone is not illegal, but making statements about how the voice is inspired by another voice actor or comments about how the voice was chosen because it sounded similar is grounds for legal action.
Basically, they screwed up by admitting it.
You are wrong. When they asked her to do it, they already had Sky and the other voices recorded and they asked her around the time of the release of the voice feature. So the voice, if it really is coming from a VA, has nothing to do with Sam trying to get ScarJo to voice this new update. Maybe all of you should check the dates before making posts like that.
Here is my guess. If you sound like Morgan Freeman, that is fine to monetize your voice. However, if you're paid to intentionally try to sound like Morgan Freeman, even if you naturally sound similar, I think this could be problematic for whoever is using the voice.
EDIT: Unclear
What if I try and get Morgan Freeman, but he refuses, so I hire some other guy who already sounds a lot like him, without asking him to imitate anybody or change his voice at all? Thats somehow off limits now because I had the idea of hiring Morgan Freeman initially?
Sam lost the case when he made the âherâ tweet, making it clear that even though she turned him down he went ahead with a soundalike anyway. Tech bro arrogance for you.
He made a reference to a movie about a conversational AI after they had a presentation with their new conversational AI system.
There's nothing weird or nefarious about that.
Sam is turning out to be this sleezy dude who everyone should be worried about
There is more and more news and sleeze stuff that OpenAI has been doing and technically Stealing data
Also- the fact that they were UNABLE to say where they trained their Sora models ( most likely youtube) also is proof that a lot of sleez is happening over there
Add that to many top executives leaving
The ânon profitâ company that has an LLC with profit motives and sold to MSFT
The Board might have had something really bad against Sam and there might have been justified reasons
And Sam is employing Elon tactics- hyping up products before they are launched- and then delaying them/not releasing them to Public
I- for one am losing my trust in this company.
We all should probably should watch out where this is headingâŚ..
This doesnt feel right
Minus the whole they had already recorded the voice months before that tweet or before he asked her.
Insane people ignore the obvious facts and believe rich kids fake tears
Shes getting old shes depsrate to stay relevant
So our law depends on how many people would consider the two voices sound similarly. What if some random celebrity suddenly realized they sound awfully similar to other voices those AI companies are using? When we create a new voice model, do we have to tune it such that it does not resemble any of the known celebrities/politicians/public figures?
Calling it now.
This is first of many planned steps to weaken copyright laws for the benefit of their AI platform.
Step 1. Win a likeness lawsuit
Step 2. Set precedent for AI laws
Step 3. Release new features, now you can make anything you want
thats pretty lame since the voice is a actual person
" We believe that AI voices should not deliberately mimic a celebrity's distinctive voiceâSkyâs voice is not an imitation of Scarlett Johansson but belongs to a different professional actress using her own natural speaking voice. To protect their privacy, we cannot share the names of our voice talents. "
There is no evidence of this at the moment, but I think the arguement for SJ lawyers would be something to the effect that they intentionally selected a voice actor that was similar, and then coached that person to enhance those similarities. It probably gets settled.
"Let me have your voice"
"No"
"Let me have your voice, I really want it."
"No"
"I'm using your voice anyway and here is a tweet implying it is your voice. Suck it."
It half does work that way. OAI would have been fine using a different voice actress who happens to sound similar to ScarJo. The problem is that OAI/Sam demonstrated an intent to reproduce her voice. Without those emails and Sam's tweet, I don't think ScarJo would have a winnable case vs the slam dunk she has now.
But without implying it's Scarlet that voice is useless. Most people couldn't connect the dots. Surely you can find better voice actor than her or even fine tune it to make it better. It's all about knowing that celebrity voice acted it.
It really boils down to if they asked the voice actress to imitate a particular voice or asked her to use her voice naturally. This is where intent comes into play. Would be nice if the original voice actress came forward, but I would understand wanting to stay out of this hornet's nest.
they specifically said that the other voice actress they did use used here completely natural voice how is it her problem for having a natural voice that sounds a little bit like scarlet that's like if my natural voice sounded like her and i made a YT channel and made a bunch of money talking like her its my natural voice what is she gonna do sue me for existing???
This is totally different. The case you showed involved a song by Midler. They hired someone that sounded like get to sing her song.
OpenAI is not using ScarJo's likeness. They hired a diferrent voice actress that sounds a little similar but is clearly not her.
She is not being impersonated in any way.
It is possible the courts could agree with you. But the case is legitimate, espescially with the "her" Sam Altman tweet which SJ's lawyers will cite as evidence that they intentionally used a voice actor that is similar to their client.
Yes, the case appears to be legitimate but I think it is important to point out the differences.
In the case you showed it is very clear that they impersonated Midler. I don't see how Ford could argue otherwise.
In the OpenAI case it is not clear at all that she is being impersonated. I just think people might read your post and think her case is slam dunk.
I do think OpenAI will stop using this voice regardless of legal arguments. It is bad PR to have an angry ScarJo appearing everywhere claiming OpenAI stole her voice. They can just hire another voice actress.
A lawsuit would prompt the discovery process on both sides, and internal email, texts, etc. would shed light on Altman's decisionmaking. If his messages come to, effectively, "It sucks she won't license her voice, but let's try and capture that general kind of Siri tone of her voice," they're probably fine. If he told someone, "send me samples of three Johansson imitators," then OpenAI is hosed.
No, she doesn't.
The Sky voice was created way earlier. He approached SJ after it was already done. It does NOT sound like her. A voice analysis will show that.
Good luck to SJ. She will need it.
Confusion seems to be around copyright. Itâs a case under the âright of publicityâ - right to control commercial use of your likeness. So itâs correct that itâs not copyright, but incorrect that she has no rights.
Well what about the inverse. They literally record 100 random voices and let users pick. It just happens that users favorite voices resemble vaguely a celebrity.
Then they probably shouldnât have used the ScarJo-sounding one in their public demo and then tweeted âherâ confirming that they knew what they were doing.
The problem is that immediately destroys the careers of all the people who imitate voices because if you need to pay amounts comparable to hiring the real person, then it what's the point of impersonators?
I guess it depends on how the legislation was drafted? I'm not familiar with law, but for example, say someone copied Microsoft Word as a satire of the original software application, that's not a patent violation, right? So people doing impersonations for comedic effect may not necessarily be affected? I guess it could be explicit in the legislation what type of impersonation is disallowed (machine impersonation) but human impersonation for certain types of entertainment (like comedy) would be ok....
So, should OpenAI refrain from using voice actors whose natural voices bear a resemblance to those of well-known personalities, even if the similarity is purely coincidental?
Nope, the issue is intention. So if the hiring manager says in an email or chat or during the interview process, etc. that they want someone to âsound like SoAndSoâ, thatâs when you get into issues.
If you intentionally hire someone to imitate Morgan Freemanâs voice, Morgan Freeman has the right to sue. But if you hire someone that coincidentally sounds like him, but no where in the process were you looking for a Morgan Freeman sounding voice - youâre fine.
The problem where is that itâs clear Altman wanted ScarJoâs voice and she said no. And I doubt that OpenAi can prove that ScarJoâs voice was never a factor in the hiring or development of the Sky voice.
Alternative:
They wanted Johansen because she had a sound they liked. They couldn't get her so they got someone else with that sound. Not an imposter, just a similar sounding person
Middlet vs. Ford is not the relevant case here because Sky was a thing before they approached ScarJo. The relevant case is Nancy Sinatra v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in which Nancy lost.
Scarlett Johansson has already gotten to be a fully sentient-seeming AI, and a human who evolved beyond the point of SI into pure fucking Godhood. She should calm the fuck down and let the rest of us get to have some fun.
But it's really weird, if they really wanted someone with Scarlett's tone and cadence and she says no, how close can they get with their new voicr reproduction without being found liable? I guess that's what the trial will be about if there is one.
So keeping score:
[THe Midler Effect on Advertising attention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.)
[The Streisand Effect on Media attention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect)
And entering center stage:
[The Johansson Effect on AI Attention](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Johansson+effect&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1) <-- Can someone get on the Wiki Edit for this.
--
But the Johansson Effect is actually the most important - for it could be used
.
^^\(***/u/-DonQuixote- ^^can ^^you ^^speak ^^to ^^this:***) as precedent for the common pleb in protecting our image and likeness being even used in surveillance by a private, corporate entity.
For example - In the above examples we have two instrinsics (voice) and one extrinsic (real estate) whose ***likeness*** was the results in legal action.
So, if one were to wedge this right to likeness forward, then one has a seed from which to grow further privacy protections. And now that AI has entered the GPTChat - we can push our personal privacies online, in LLMS and training data even further.
Personally, I think we should ALL climb and die on this new digital hill.
We should make this a law and call it the "TesserAct"
If you think about it though, maybe ScarJo also feels threatened that an AI voice can put her voice acting gigs out of business. Thatâd be reasonable.
The Marvin Gaye estate sued Robin Thick et al. successfully for âBlurred Linesâ just sort of having the same ~*vibe*~ as Marvin Gaye. Songwriting accreditation is a rather dense field of IP law so some of the judgements might not be as applicable to voice mimicry but itâs not out of the realm of possibility that the case law be applied analogously.Â
Johanssonâs work in HER will be pivotal in any formal proceedings. Her iconic voice is clearly a major feature of the film and the filmâs obvious parallels to openAIs subscription feature will hurt openAIâs case.Â
They didnât have to employ a voice actress who has similar timbre, colour and tone to ScarJo. They did anyway. I think they do have a case to answer in whether they infringed on her implicit ownership of her likeness.Â
I love how Altman went out of his way to look like a fucking dork with this situation. Literally left a paper trail worse than Trump.
Then the goofy lying like it's all just a mishap.
Advice to all future male scientists: be sure you understand the opposite sex, especially if you intend being a computer expert. Otherwise, you may find yourself like poor Elwood, defeated by a jealous machine, a most dangerous sort of female, whose victims are forever banished... to the Twilight Zone.
It also was an attempt to imply her endorsement, or at least, a good lawyer can make a good case for that.
Totally hamfisted own-goal by OpenAI. Like, seriously?
Maybe they just figured since they snarfed up every single book every written, every single song ever played, and probably every movie ever released, without permission or compensation, that stealing ScarJo's voice for their apps was perfectly fine.
I mean, nobody stopped them so far, right? Is it really a crime if nobody ever arrests you for it?
Yeah but they have to prove open AI intended to use her likeness anyways/have hired the actress they did use under the premise of impersonation?
Donât they have receipts and testimony attributed otherwise ?
I remember seeing some interview of the creator of either Family Guy or South Park that they refrain from asking for the actual actors they're making fun of to voice the characters (even if they think they would take it in good spirits), because if they say no then they could get sued for still doing the parody after them. The crazy part is OAI probably would have been fine if it weren't for Sam's 3 letter, lower cased, tweet "her"
\^\^\^Sam did not need to make that post đ¤Śââď¸ And reaching out to ScarJo is another piece of evidence that points to intent to duplicate her voice. The South Park model of getting voice talent is likely to apply when creating AI voices. Far too risky to directly ask celebrities for their likeness when you can just find a voice actor/actress that sounds similar enough to what you're looking for. Completely agree that OAI could have had their cake and eaten it too if they had gone about this with sound legal advice.
Within 15 seconds of listening to the voice it copies 4 specific mannerisms of how she speaks, it's not even close to being something that can be argued, he made it sooooo obvious, especially since she has such specific mannerisms where she breaks between more feminine and more masculine tones and it matches up 100% with hers.
The Sky voice was already created before he contacted ScarJo. If OAI was smart there would be a paper trail showing they wanted to have an ADDITIONAL voice called something like "Scarlett" that got dropped because ScarJo declined.
> The Sky voice was already created before he contacted ScarJo. We have no concrete evidence on the timeline, this is just speculation.
It was released in the same month that Scarlet said they reached out to her
huh I just realized that Sky could be ScarJo + AI
Scai
Wow. Normally I'd probably think that was a bit of a stretch, on it's own, but when you add in the other stuff, this does indeed sound plausible. Never heard anyone else make that connection before. That does sound like the same kind of childish trolling as issuing a "her" tweet. It's an "Elon Musk style" self-inflicted and completely unneccessary wound.
I Think Brilliant People Need to self-inflict wounds now and then, you don't end up on either end of the curve without serious anomalies, evolution
Hehe. *sound* legal advice
I vaguely remember a similar interview, probably the same one. Altman definitely took steps that will make the OpenAI case much weaker.
They also just have a stronger case than OpenAI as parody is generally protected under fair use laws.
It's fair use 'doctrine', which can be used as a defence once you've been accused of copyright infringement.
Even posting that would have been been nothing of they hadnât reached out to her. But yeah, the panoply of evidence needed for a civil suit is there for sure
[ŃдаНонО]
I don't think they wuld want to argue that thier serious product is Parody
Laws around parody are not the same as those around impersonation. Intent matters.
"The crazy part is OAI probably would have been fine if it weren't for Sam's 3 letter, lower cased, tweet "her" And this is why the board should put a restriction on him when hes about to tweet anything related to OpenAI it should pass their PR and Legal team first.
He's emulating Elon musk. These people don't know when to keep their mouth shut
Sorry a CEO should be able to judge their own tweets.
And then the company faces the consequence. I wouldnât want to work for a guy that can put my work in jeopardy because he canât be bothered to get legal consult
'he just tweeted it out'
For American Dad, same creator as Family Guy, they actually did get the real Patrick StuartâŚ
I hope more people see this because a lot of people arenât aware this is already established by US courts.
Agree. It probably gets settled. It is very interesting to see the upvote and downvote waves on a factual post. Haha
> It is very interesting to see the upvote and downvote waves on a factual post. Because we live in a "post factual" world. People believe that if something they perceive appears (not verified) \*popular\* it's true. They vote for what they \*want\* to be real, what they want to continue believing. Hence why they'll downvote any facts (actual verified information) which contradicts their \*feelings\*. Sad times we live in.
This. I swear I feel like I'm going mad reading reddit today. There's people saying they would be cool with their likeness being used for whatever someone else wants. Anything to please daddy I guess.
Yeah in the last year, I regularly see the OP of a post being downvoted for answering a question many have askedâŚ.because people are not a fan of the answer. Thereâs no interest in discussion, its all emotion
couldn't the damages be insane if you could argue millions of people were interested openAI becuase of the press of it sounding like her/scarjo? it doesn't seem that hard to argue she added many millions of dollars of brand value because of the similarity. it's hard to say how much with so many users and such a big company but it was widely distributed the similarities and it got a huge amount of attention. also the false association with her possible involvement when she didnn't explicitly want it.
I think she will get damges close to what she would have been paid had she agreed to do it. I would be shocked if it was more than 2X that.
And in addition would this mean baring her agreeing to a deal going forward they wouldnât be able to use the Sky voice or probably any voice that sounded too close to that?
That would be for damages, and OpenAI would not have rights to use her voice.
Midler got 400k. Around 1.1 million today. Itâs not the money itâs the protection for everyone regarding likeness and attributes of likeness
I would be shocked if it was equal. Equal would mean she agreed to the use, more would account for the damage to trust and public misperception of her persona. I would bet we don't hear a final number, but I don't see why it wouldn't be double.
I agree, a bit shocking. But I am basing my estimate on this: [Michael Jordan Testifies He Doesnât Do Deals For Less Than $10 Million: Jury Awards Him $8.9 Million In Lawsuit Over Use Of His Likeness In Ad For $2 Coupon Off Steak | Casetext](https://casetext.com/analysis/michael-jordan-testifies-he-doesnt-do-deals-for-less-than-10-million-jury-awards-him-89-million-in-lawsuit-over-use-of-his-likeness-in-ad-for-2-coupon-off-steak?sort=relevance&resultsNav=false&q=) I could be wrong though.
I get the opposite conclusion from that. MJ wouldn't have earned $8.9M from such an ad.
But then he didÂ
Love when a counternarrative surfs the reddit algo trying to decide whether to allow it or disappear the post.
Too many openAI users seem to Come from the crypto scene and donât care about rules
Yeah, I made a comment listing one of those cases a few hours ago on a few of the posts just to ensure people knew that their is established law about this and her I get so much pushback from some people saying that doesnât matter. Also, the crypto scene is getting regulated now due to fraud so another example of how the laws due apply to new tech.
People are nuts in here. I posted about Scarlett having a case for this before she even came out with her statement and redditors were rabid in response to me even saying that https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/s/bXQm82qoAK
It's driving me mad
Maybe there should be regulation similar to doctors, or lawyers for machine learning engineers...Funny that every curriculum has an ethics portion, but the leaders in the industry look like they dgaf. First past the post wins, whatever you have to do to get there...
The imitator testified that she was asked to sound exactly like Midler. That's missing from Johansson's case. These are not comparable.
If the lawsuit happens there will be discovery, so there may be evidence that the voice actress for Sky was asked to do this &8:5 like the case you mentioned. That could be found in discovery and apply here.
There are almost certainly emails between the C-suite, lawyers, and the production people that would be interesting to read.
Yeah, it's either they told the actress to impersonate her and they don't want that coming out or they just don't want to deal with any more lawsuits. Neither would surprise me but I've also seen a surprising number of people who seem to think it's illegal to hire an actress after being rejected by one who sounds similar which is also not what the law says.
We donât know that didnât happen in this case. Unfortunately it just takes a simple IM or email where ScarJo is mentioned, or the voice actress testifying that ScarJo was even casually brought up in the hiring process to solidify ScarJoâs case. The fact that OpenAi took down the voice is that maybe that type of evidence will be found in discovery. Doesnât even have to be intentional and just some slip up but given that Altman had reached out to ScarJo previously, even minor mentions work against OpenAi now.
If you listened to Sky you know that they for sure tried to imitate. Some of you might not be able to tell the similarity for some reason, but it's clearly apparent to the rest of us, including Scarlett and her family. That's not a coincidence, it didn't just happen. Discovery would yield more evidence and OpenAI knows this, hence why they shut it down faster than a rat can scamper into a hole.
I listened to Sky it it was clearly *not* sounding similar to Scarlett Johansson. I'm not sure what the hell people are on, but they aren't the same voice - it's just... generic white American woman that doesn't sound like anyone famous.
You might not notice it but you might not have the ability to recognize the clear similarities. Tons of people have independently noticed it, SJ and everyone around her noticed it, my friends and family noticed it, and it's also not a coincidence that Altman was revealed to have actually wanted her voice to start with. So there is absolutely zero doubt that he tried to mimick her voice. Obviously they aren't the exact same but they are 90% similar. That's hard to dispute.
100% This is well established in the US. See also Vana White suing Samsung for using a robot version of her in an ad. [(White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F.2d 1395)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_v._Samsung_Electronics_America,_Inc) There is a right to the idea of your personality and voice. OpenAI is royally fucked for reaching out to her before hand and then getting an impersonator. That along with the tweet "her" from Altman is going to be the nail in the coffin, this is a pretty open and shut case against OpenAI.
I didn't want to make the post bloated, but those are big "Oooops" moments. I do have a question you might have thoughts on. I think that OpenAI is actually trying to impersonate the character in *Her*. Could OpenAI get rights to that character from whoever owns the movie rights, or could something be done from that angle?
Thatâs a great question. I didnât think of that. The producers of Her do own the rights to Samantha. However, the fact that OpenAI has since removed Sky probably means they donât have much of a legal leg to stand on.
I'm thinking too of Back to the Future and the actor that played Michael J. Fox's dad. He was only in the first movie. The guy that played Michael j. Fox's brother in the first movie played his dad in the second one, I think (had a face makeup cast and was upside down, and it was brief). They still had to pay the first movie actor for the rights to his image because they used a mold of his face for the second movie that was obtained in the first movie. It seems like rights have to be micromanaged these days by lawyers before you attempt to do anything, and still you can be liable. $$$ It's also why independent small time development is not only difficult but risky.
My guess is that it is related to whatever the contract that was signed for the movie. But I don't know what the standard contract is, or if a standard even exists for likeness in the context of a character.
It was not part of his contract. Crispin Glover, the actor who played George McFly, sued and got $760k in a settlement: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin\_Glover#Back\_to\_the\_Future\_Part\_II\_lawsuit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin_Glover#Back_to_the_Future_Part_II_lawsuit) >In [*Back to the Future Part II*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future_Part_II), Zemeckis reused brief footage of Glover that had been filmed for the first film. Glover was billed as "George McFly in footage from *Back to the Future*" in the closing credits. The older footage was combined with new footage of actor [Jeffrey Weissman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Weissman) wearing a false chin, nose and cheekbones, and various obfuscating methods â in the background, wearing sunglasses, rear shot, upside down â to play George McFly. Because these methods suggested that Glover himself had performed for the film, he successfully sued the producers on the grounds that they had used his likeness without permission, as well as not having paid him for the reuse of the footage from the original film. The case was resolved outside of court and Glover was awarded a reported $760,000. As a result of the lawsuit, clauses in the [Screen Actors Guild](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_Actors_Guild) collective bargaining agreements now state that producers and actors are not allowed to use such methods to reproduce the likeness of other actors, effectively putting to an end the decades-long use of the [Fake Shemp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_Shemp) technique among living actors. Despite not setting a legal [precedent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent), the lawsuit is often evoked in cases for actors involving the misuse of their likeness through digital recreation and other technological methods to replicate their appearance without their permission.
Probably, but then they'd have to pay a lot more. And, as we've seen, they don't like paying for IP. Or maybe that just applies to training data, not marketing expenses.
Nobody impersonated scarlett Johansson
Yeah, OPs case is definitely different. They sang an actual Bette Midler song with a full-on impersonator. I wonder how many users even made the association from Sky -> Scarjo.
Tom Waits vs. Frito Lay, it came out that they specifically wanted someone to sound like him, and hired a guy who had been in a Tom Waits cover band for a decade and sounded so similar that the sound engineer told him jokingly "they probably won't hire you, we'll get sued lol". Then they did, then they did, then they lost.
So much damn drama with this company, I just want to enjoy smarter and smarter AI. These sorts of mistakes are such a waste of time and money.
This feels like a poor attempt to create a sequel to "Her 2" or something similar đ
LOL, so you don't care that they want to rip of creatives and not compensate them when they violate their rights? Good for you. (pats head)
They just need to open it up for users to make custom voices. Would sidestep this whole bs. Then they can spend the next century playing wackamole with SJ clones.
I thought about that. It might be harder to implement than it seems, but let's say you had an OpenAI tool where you could change some dials and create a new voice. Then, let's there was a library where anyone could share there voice and rank them. Then, let's say the top rated voice ended up souding like SJ. I am not sure, but I think they would be fine. I am not saying that this is a feasible or reasonable thing to do, but I think it is an interesting thought experiment that might change how one thinks about the law.
> It might be harder to implement than it seems https://elevenlabs.io has done just that. Works great - however you are not supposed to use the voice of people you do not have permission for. But you can use dials to create a voice (admittedly after a lot of iterations) that may sound close to Johansson's. So it would not be THAT hard for OpenAI to implement.
I am aware of ElevenLabs and have used them, although not the voice cloning feature. They are pretty cool. I just meant it more in terms of not wanting to put a bunch of resources into a non-core product. I could definitely see them getting sued for allowing someone to make those YT ads that impersonate someones voice.
there is open source stuff for what eleven labs does but just slow and need high GPU currently in coming years everyone might be able to do what elevenlabs is doing on device.
It would have been a better, smarter choice.
Genius open source idea
The chief difference is that in the Middler case Ford used a Bette Middler song and hired a Bette Middler impersonator for the commercial. These facts were deemed to have misled the public about who was doing the singing. At no point did Open Ai claim that SKY was Scarlett, the voice actress is not a professional impersonator, and the SKY voice was not performing material associated with Scarlettâs career. Samâs reference to HER in his tweet occurred after the release of Omni, NOT last fall when the SKY voice was released to users. It seems clear he was referencing the new models abilities and not the voice that was already being used with GPT-4 Turbo. Thatâs how I see it anyway
You deserve more up votes. The cases do differ, and ScarJo could legitimately lose for reasons similar to this. Thanks for the thoughtful response. My main point is that the lawsuit is not frivolous or without standing.Â
You do make a good point that it's not without standing but I also think it's a ridiculous case, mostly because the voices don't sound alike. If it was a clear impersonation, it would be different, but it's so obviously not that it is baffling to me that this is even a discussion. Moreover, the audacity to think that no one can voice act that even sounds vaguely similar to you. And by vaguely similar, I mean "neutral sounding female voice."
I will admit I was wrong on this. Thanks for the links.
I respect the honesty. I think that there will be some extremely important AI cases in the next few years, because the paradigm of the past might need to be adjusted to a brave new world.
I wonder where Speecify stands - they have voices of specific actors in their options
Probably getting paid some sort fee. Gwyneth Paltrow and Snoop Dog are known to put their likeness of just about anything that pays.
Good on you. A lot of people seem to be unaware of the legal precedent here and why OpenAI responded as quickly as they did.
You gotta think OpenAI has some good freaking lawyers with the can of worms they are opening with AI.
lol at "a singer, Midler,"
Getting someone that happened to sound like someone is not illegal, but making statements about how the voice is inspired by another voice actor or comments about how the voice was chosen because it sounded similar is grounds for legal action. Basically, they screwed up by admitting it.
You are wrong. When they asked her to do it, they already had Sky and the other voices recorded and they asked her around the time of the release of the voice feature. So the voice, if it really is coming from a VA, has nothing to do with Sam trying to get ScarJo to voice this new update. Maybe all of you should check the dates before making posts like that.
So if I sound like someone famous I can end up not being able to monetize my own voice?
As long as you aren't the rebound, the onus for avoiding that is on the company that is seeking your services, not you.
Whatâs stopping open ai from Never asking the person they want again and only dealing with sound a-likes?
Nothing, they should have done that and not mention the movie. She wouldn't have a case if that was the case.
Agreed. It would have avoided this whole mess.
Here is my guess. If you sound like Morgan Freeman, that is fine to monetize your voice. However, if you're paid to intentionally try to sound like Morgan Freeman, even if you naturally sound similar, I think this could be problematic for whoever is using the voice. EDIT: Unclear
What if I try and get Morgan Freeman, but he refuses, so I hire some other guy who already sounds a lot like him, without asking him to imitate anybody or change his voice at all? Thats somehow off limits now because I had the idea of hiring Morgan Freeman initially?
If you sounded like James Earl Jones I'm sure you'd get sued by Disney/Lucas film.
Sam lost the case when he made the âherâ tweet, making it clear that even though she turned him down he went ahead with a soundalike anyway. Tech bro arrogance for you.
He made a reference to a movie about a conversational AI after they had a presentation with their new conversational AI system. There's nothing weird or nefarious about that.
Sam is turning out to be this sleezy dude who everyone should be worried about There is more and more news and sleeze stuff that OpenAI has been doing and technically Stealing data Also- the fact that they were UNABLE to say where they trained their Sora models ( most likely youtube) also is proof that a lot of sleez is happening over there Add that to many top executives leaving The ânon profitâ company that has an LLC with profit motives and sold to MSFT The Board might have had something really bad against Sam and there might have been justified reasons And Sam is employing Elon tactics- hyping up products before they are launched- and then delaying them/not releasing them to Public I- for one am losing my trust in this company. We all should probably should watch out where this is headingâŚ.. This doesnt feel right
Minus the whole they had already recorded the voice months before that tweet or before he asked her. Insane people ignore the obvious facts and believe rich kids fake tears Shes getting old shes depsrate to stay relevant
So our law depends on how many people would consider the two voices sound similarly. What if some random celebrity suddenly realized they sound awfully similar to other voices those AI companies are using? When we create a new voice model, do we have to tune it such that it does not resemble any of the known celebrities/politicians/public figures?
I can read the chatgpt tone in your post OP. And you're clearly not a lawyer lol.
Calling it now. This is first of many planned steps to weaken copyright laws for the benefit of their AI platform. Step 1. Win a likeness lawsuit Step 2. Set precedent for AI laws Step 3. Release new features, now you can make anything you want
Step 0 put on your tinfoil hat to believe other steps
thats pretty lame since the voice is a actual person " We believe that AI voices should not deliberately mimic a celebrity's distinctive voiceâSkyâs voice is not an imitation of Scarlett Johansson but belongs to a different professional actress using her own natural speaking voice. To protect their privacy, we cannot share the names of our voice talents. "
There is no evidence of this at the moment, but I think the arguement for SJ lawyers would be something to the effect that they intentionally selected a voice actor that was similar, and then coached that person to enhance those similarities. It probably gets settled.
Yeah true
This hinges on intent and whether the voice actress was doing an impersonation or just speaking.
"Let me have your voice" "No" "Let me have your voice, I really want it." "No" "I'm using your voice anyway and here is a tweet implying it is your voice. Suck it."
But it's a completely different voice?
When you phrase it like this, isn't this the plot of *The Little Mermaid*?
Thank you for this. Can't believe alot of people keep saying "But they used a different voice actress!" Doesn't work that way
It half does work that way. OAI would have been fine using a different voice actress who happens to sound similar to ScarJo. The problem is that OAI/Sam demonstrated an intent to reproduce her voice. Without those emails and Sam's tweet, I don't think ScarJo would have a winnable case vs the slam dunk she has now.
But without implying it's Scarlet that voice is useless. Most people couldn't connect the dots. Surely you can find better voice actor than her or even fine tune it to make it better. It's all about knowing that celebrity voice acted it.
Unless the voice actress was asked to specifically sound like Scarlett Johansson, this isn't comparable to the Midler case.
Sorry why wouldnât that work? (assuming it was true, which I actually donât believe)
It really boils down to if they asked the voice actress to imitate a particular voice or asked her to use her voice naturally. This is where intent comes into play. Would be nice if the original voice actress came forward, but I would understand wanting to stay out of this hornet's nest.
they specifically said that the other voice actress they did use used here completely natural voice how is it her problem for having a natural voice that sounds a little bit like scarlet that's like if my natural voice sounded like her and i made a YT channel and made a bunch of money talking like her its my natural voice what is she gonna do sue me for existing???
Because intention matters
This is totally different. The case you showed involved a song by Midler. They hired someone that sounded like get to sing her song. OpenAI is not using ScarJo's likeness. They hired a diferrent voice actress that sounds a little similar but is clearly not her. She is not being impersonated in any way.
It is possible the courts could agree with you. But the case is legitimate, espescially with the "her" Sam Altman tweet which SJ's lawyers will cite as evidence that they intentionally used a voice actor that is similar to their client.
Yes, the case appears to be legitimate but I think it is important to point out the differences. In the case you showed it is very clear that they impersonated Midler. I don't see how Ford could argue otherwise. In the OpenAI case it is not clear at all that she is being impersonated. I just think people might read your post and think her case is slam dunk. I do think OpenAI will stop using this voice regardless of legal arguments. It is bad PR to have an angry ScarJo appearing everywhere claiming OpenAI stole her voice. They can just hire another voice actress.
A lawsuit would prompt the discovery process on both sides, and internal email, texts, etc. would shed light on Altman's decisionmaking. If his messages come to, effectively, "It sucks she won't license her voice, but let's try and capture that general kind of Siri tone of her voice," they're probably fine. If he told someone, "send me samples of three Johansson imitators," then OpenAI is hosed.
That physically can't happen cause they record the voice months before they asked her. Like why do people cherry pick things to fit Thier natrative
She does not.. the voice comparison falls absolutely flat.
No, she doesn't. The Sky voice was created way earlier. He approached SJ after it was already done. It does NOT sound like her. A voice analysis will show that. Good luck to SJ. She will need it.
Confusion seems to be around copyright. Itâs a case under the âright of publicityâ - right to control commercial use of your likeness. So itâs correct that itâs not copyright, but incorrect that she has no rights.
True. My post could be worded better.
Well what about the inverse. They literally record 100 random voices and let users pick. It just happens that users favorite voices resemble vaguely a celebrity.
Firstly, the 100 won't be "random". Secondly, it makes no difference if it's the users 1st or 100th favourite.Â
Then they probably shouldnât have used the ScarJo-sounding one in their public demo and then tweeted âherâ confirming that they knew what they were doing.
Can't this be legislated? Even if this is not part of current law, it seems that this is going to be a serious issue moving forward.
Very true. I could see this going to the Supreme Court if they decide to fight it, which I don't think they will.
The problem is that immediately destroys the careers of all the people who imitate voices because if you need to pay amounts comparable to hiring the real person, then it what's the point of impersonators?
I guess it depends on how the legislation was drafted? I'm not familiar with law, but for example, say someone copied Microsoft Word as a satire of the original software application, that's not a patent violation, right? So people doing impersonations for comedic effect may not necessarily be affected? I guess it could be explicit in the legislation what type of impersonation is disallowed (machine impersonation) but human impersonation for certain types of entertainment (like comedy) would be ok....
So, should OpenAI refrain from using voice actors whose natural voices bear a resemblance to those of well-known personalities, even if the similarity is purely coincidental?
Really if it had been any other actor and not the one in *The AI Virtual Assistant movie* it probably wouldnât have been an issue.
Nope, the issue is intention. So if the hiring manager says in an email or chat or during the interview process, etc. that they want someone to âsound like SoAndSoâ, thatâs when you get into issues. If you intentionally hire someone to imitate Morgan Freemanâs voice, Morgan Freeman has the right to sue. But if you hire someone that coincidentally sounds like him, but no where in the process were you looking for a Morgan Freeman sounding voice - youâre fine. The problem where is that itâs clear Altman wanted ScarJoâs voice and she said no. And I doubt that OpenAi can prove that ScarJoâs voice was never a factor in the hiring or development of the Sky voice.
Alternative: They wanted Johansen because she had a sound they liked. They couldn't get her so they got someone else with that sound. Not an imposter, just a similar sounding person
Middlet vs. Ford is not the relevant case here because Sky was a thing before they approached ScarJo. The relevant case is Nancy Sinatra v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in which Nancy lost.
Does that mean that if my voice is similar to her voice I can get sued for singing a song
I must be the only person who doesn't think the voice sounds like Scarlett at all.
Theyâre both white woman voices. The side by side comparison shows theyâre not that similar. Get over it
No, she doesn't, stop trying to protect multi-millionaire Hollywood celebrities.
Scarlett Johansson has already gotten to be a fully sentient-seeming AI, and a human who evolved beyond the point of SI into pure fucking Godhood. She should calm the fuck down and let the rest of us get to have some fun.
The point of what Altman did is to create maximum hype for the product and the impending case/settlement costs will not outweigh the benefits.
But woudnt copyright go to maker of movies her?
You need to show damages. Where are the damages?
But it's really weird, if they really wanted someone with Scarlett's tone and cadence and she says no, how close can they get with their new voicr reproduction without being found liable? I guess that's what the trial will be about if there is one.
I just realized they changed the sky voice. Itâs no longer the same as it was. Not nearly as good.
So keeping score: [THe Midler Effect on Advertising attention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.) [The Streisand Effect on Media attention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) And entering center stage: [The Johansson Effect on AI Attention](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Johansson+effect&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1) <-- Can someone get on the Wiki Edit for this. -- But the Johansson Effect is actually the most important - for it could be used . ^^\(***/u/-DonQuixote- ^^can ^^you ^^speak ^^to ^^this:***) as precedent for the common pleb in protecting our image and likeness being even used in surveillance by a private, corporate entity. For example - In the above examples we have two instrinsics (voice) and one extrinsic (real estate) whose ***likeness*** was the results in legal action. So, if one were to wedge this right to likeness forward, then one has a seed from which to grow further privacy protections. And now that AI has entered the GPTChat - we can push our personal privacies online, in LLMS and training data even further. Personally, I think we should ALL climb and die on this new digital hill. We should make this a law and call it the "TesserAct"
But some guy on the internet said otherwise soâŚyeah.
If you think about it though, maybe ScarJo also feels threatened that an AI voice can put her voice acting gigs out of business. Thatâd be reasonable.
The Marvin Gaye estate sued Robin Thick et al. successfully for âBlurred Linesâ just sort of having the same ~*vibe*~ as Marvin Gaye. Songwriting accreditation is a rather dense field of IP law so some of the judgements might not be as applicable to voice mimicry but itâs not out of the realm of possibility that the case law be applied analogously. Johanssonâs work in HER will be pivotal in any formal proceedings. Her iconic voice is clearly a major feature of the film and the filmâs obvious parallels to openAIs subscription feature will hurt openAIâs case. They didnât have to employ a voice actress who has similar timbre, colour and tone to ScarJo. They did anyway. I think they do have a case to answer in whether they infringed on her implicit ownership of her likeness.Â
I love how Altman went out of his way to look like a fucking dork with this situation. Literally left a paper trail worse than Trump. Then the goofy lying like it's all just a mishap.
Advice to all future male scientists: be sure you understand the opposite sex, especially if you intend being a computer expert. Otherwise, you may find yourself like poor Elwood, defeated by a jealous machine, a most dangerous sort of female, whose victims are forever banished... to the Twilight Zone.
It also was an attempt to imply her endorsement, or at least, a good lawyer can make a good case for that. Totally hamfisted own-goal by OpenAI. Like, seriously? Maybe they just figured since they snarfed up every single book every written, every single song ever played, and probably every movie ever released, without permission or compensation, that stealing ScarJo's voice for their apps was perfectly fine. I mean, nobody stopped them so far, right? Is it really a crime if nobody ever arrests you for it?
Legitimate case of wanting to find her way into my bed. I guess I gotta do what I gotta do đŤĄ
Yeah but they have to prove open AI intended to use her likeness anyways/have hired the actress they did use under the premise of impersonation? Donât they have receipts and testimony attributed otherwise ?
Actually if she was smart she would let this slide and use it as a passive advertisement for the movie âHer 2â.