21 ms·

There are many people with voices similar to Scarlett Johansson's. If SJ is unwilling to be a voice actor for OpenAi, then why should OpenAI not find a similar

There are many people with voices similar to Scarlett Johansson's. If SJ is unwilling to be a voice actor for OpenAi, then why should OpenAI not find a similar voice and use that instead? SJ certainly does not have a monopoly on all voices similar to hers. Anyone in possession of such a voice has the same right as SJ to monetize it. And someone did in fact exercise that right. If you compare the Sky voice to SJ's, they're not the same. OpenAI's mistake was caving to SJ. They should have kept Sky and told SJ to get lost. If SJ sued, they could simply prove another voice actor was used and make the legitimate argument that SJ doesn't have a monopoly on voices similar to hers.

breadwinner 2y ago
Agree. And what about people who look similar to SJ? Are they precluded from acting jobs, simply because SJ became an actor first?
sillysaurusx 2y ago
I too am mystified. I think what’s going on here is that Scarlett is famous, and so media outlets will widely cover this. In other words, this latest incident hasn’t riled up people any more than usual — if you scan the comments, they’re not much different from how people already felt about OpenAI. But now there’s an excuse for everybody to voice their opinions simultaneously. They’re acting like the company literally stole something. It also didn’t help that OpenAI removed the Sky voice. Why would they do that unless they have something to hide? The answer of course is that Scarlett is famously rich, and a famously rich person can wage a famously expensive lawsuit against OpenAI, even if there’s no basis. But OpenAI should’ve paid the cost. Now it just looks like their hand was caught in some kind of cookie jar, even though no one can say precisely what kind of cookies were being stolen.
FMecha 2y ago
See Waits vs. Frito Lay.
- kaiwen1 2y ago
  In that case, as I understand it, the voice actor intentionally mimicked Waits, purposefully using his intonations, style of speech, and phrasing, all of which were not natural to the voice actor. He was intentionally mimicking Waits. I doubt the same claim can be made of the Sky voice actor.
  - djur 2y ago
    OpenAI had the opportunity to prove as much in court and chose not to.
  - asadotzler 2y ago
    Doesn't matter if the voice was natural or not if there are emails at OAI saying "find us someone who sounds just like ScarJo." I suspect there are and that's why SamA turned pussy and ran.
campbel 2y ago
IANAL, but I think the mistake they made was constantly referencing the movie 'Her' when talking about Sky.
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  100%. This whole thing is more stupidity than anything else. There is nothing wrong with using a voice that sounds like her. There is everything wrong with referencing the movie and sort of implying it is the voice from the movie. They could have easily let others make the connection. So dumb.
  - sillysaurusx 2y ago
    Why is it wrong to explicitly mimic a part played in a movie? Are we saying that the actor owns their portrayal of the role? OpenAI should’ve owned their actions. "Yes, we wanted to get a voice that sounded like the one from Her." There’s nothing wrong with that.
    - pests 2y ago
      Actors get a lot of rights to their likeness. So, yes maybe?
      - sillysaurusx 2y ago
        Hmm. Being able to say "thou shalt not make a character similar to Her" is a lot like saying "thou shalt not make a video game character similar to any other." It’s not an explicit copy, and their name for Sky was different. That’s the bar for the videogame industry; why should it be different for actors? Especially one that didn’t show her face. This whole thing is reminiscent of Valve threatening to sue S2 for allegedly making a similar character. Unsurprisingly, the threats went nowhere.
        lelandfe 2y ago
        You've really contorted the facts here. This isn't a character, it's a voice. The voice sounds remarkably like Scarlett Johansson's.
limitedfrom 2y ago
I encourage you to look through this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
- sillysaurusx 2y ago
  1. The case is from 1988. That’s the year I was born. Societal norms are in a constant state of flux, and this one case from 36 years ago isn’t really an indication of the current state of how case law will play out. 2. Ford explicitly hired an impersonator. OpenAI hired someone that sounded like her, and it’s her natural voice. Should movies be held to the same standard when casting their actors? This is about as absurd as saying that you’re not allowed to hire an actor to play a role.
  - lelandfe 2y ago
    Midler is actually quite similar. Midler didn't want to do a commercial, and refused an offer, so they hired a lookalike that fooled her friends. The appellate court held that Ford and its advertising agency had "misappropriated" Midler's voice. Waits v. Frito Lay, Inc was '92, and cited it. They used a Tom Waits-sounding voice on an original song, and Waits successfully sued: > Discussing the right of publicity, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict that the defendants had committed the “Midler tort” by misappropriating Tom Waits’ voice for commercial purposes. The Midler tort is a species of violation of the right of publicity that protects against the unauthorized imitation of a celibrity’s voice which is distinctive and widely known, for commercial purposes. https://tiplj.org/wp-content/uploads/Volumes/v1/v1p109.pdf https://tiplj.org/wp-content/uploads/Volumes/v1/v1p109.pdf Of course, who knows what a court will find at the end of this. There is precedent, however.
    - sillysaurusx 2y ago
      Thank you. I didn’t know it was similar specifically for voices in commercial use. That’s annoying, but we live in a country with lots of annoying laws that we nonetheless abide by. In this case I guess OpenAI just didn’t want to risk losing a court battle. I still think legal = moral is mistaken in general, and from a moral standpoint it’s bogus that OpenAI couldn’t replicate the movie Her. It would’ve been cool. But, people can feel however they want to feel about it, and my personal opinion is worth about two milkshakes. But it’s still strange to me that anyone has a problem with what they did.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 2y ago
If they told the voice actor to try to impersonate SJ, then Scarlett does have a case. That may not be how it should work, but it is very much how the law currently works.
- asadotzler 2y ago
  Not quite. All the had to do was tell themselves in discoverable email that they were going to seek out someone who sounded like ScarJo, or emails to the recruiter saying they wanted someone to mimic the Her voice.
hnburnsy 2y ago
>OpenAI's mistake was caving to SJ. They should have kept Sky and told SJ to get lost. If SJ sued, they could simply prove another voice actor was used and make the legitimate argument that SJ doesn't have a monopoly on voices similar to hers. Yes, they should have not reached out again, but now they are screwed. In no way will they want a trial and associated discovery. SJ can write her own ticket here.
Blackthorn 2y ago
> then why should OpenAI not find a similar voice and use that instead? That's assuming they did, right now they're asking us to pretty please trust them that their girlfriend from Canada is really real! She's real, you guys! No I can't show her to you.
gamblor956 2y ago
OpenAI caved immediately because they knew they would lose a lawsuit and be looking at a minimum of an 8 figure payout. Voice impersonation has been a settled matter for decades. It doesn't matter that they used another actress. What matters is that they tried to pass the voice off as SJ's voice several times.
gxyt6gfy5t 2y ago
Can they make that claim if SJ voice exists in the training data before fine tuning? We don’t know what they train on
FireBeyond 2y ago
> OpenAI's mistake was caving to SJ. ... If SJ sued, they could simply prove another voice actor was used and make the legitimate argument that SJ doesn't have a monopoly on voices similar to hers. Or... hear me out... maybe they couldn't prove that, which is why they caved. Caved within a day or so of her lawyers asking "So if it's not SJ's voice, whose is it?"
nojvek 2y ago
Sky sounded quite different to SJ. Them taking the voice off means they are accepting guilt it seems.

breadwinner 2y ago

Agree. And what about people who look similar to SJ? Are they precluded from acting jobs, simply because SJ became an actor first?

sillysaurusx 2y ago

I too am mystified. I think what’s going on here is that Scarlett is famous, and so media outlets will widely cover this. In other words, this latest incident hasn’t riled up people any more than usual — if you scan the comments, they’re not much different from how people already felt about OpenAI. But now there’s an excuse for everybody to voice their opinions simultaneously. They’re acting like the company literally stole something. It also didn’t help that OpenAI removed the Sky voice. Why would they do that unless they have something to hide? The answer of course is that Scarlett is famously rich, and a famously rich person can wage a famously expensive lawsuit against OpenAI, even if there’s no basis. But OpenAI should’ve paid the cost. Now it just looks like their hand was caught in some kind of cookie jar, even though no one can say precisely what kind of cookies were being stolen.

FMecha 2y ago

See Waits vs. Frito Lay.

kaiwen1 2y ago
In that case, as I understand it, the voice actor intentionally mimicked Waits, purposefully using his intonations, style of speech, and phrasing, all of which were not natural to the voice actor. He was intentionally mimicking Waits. I doubt the same claim can be made of the Sky voice actor.
- djur 2y ago
  OpenAI had the opportunity to prove as much in court and chose not to.
- asadotzler 2y ago
  Doesn't matter if the voice was natural or not if there are emails at OAI saying "find us someone who sounds just like ScarJo." I suspect there are and that's why SamA turned pussy and ran.

campbel 2y ago

IANAL, but I think the mistake they made was constantly referencing the movie 'Her' when talking about Sky.

danielmarkbruce 2y ago
100%. This whole thing is more stupidity than anything else. There is nothing wrong with using a voice that sounds like her. There is everything wrong with referencing the movie and sort of implying it is the voice from the movie. They could have easily let others make the connection. So dumb.
- sillysaurusx 2y ago
  Why is it wrong to explicitly mimic a part played in a movie? Are we saying that the actor owns their portrayal of the role? OpenAI should’ve owned their actions. "Yes, we wanted to get a voice that sounded like the one from Her." There’s nothing wrong with that.
  - pests 2y ago
    Actors get a lot of rights to their likeness. So, yes maybe?
    - sillysaurusx 2y ago
      Hmm. Being able to say "thou shalt not make a character similar to Her" is a lot like saying "thou shalt not make a video game character similar to any other." It’s not an explicit copy, and their name for Sky was different. That’s the bar for the videogame industry; why should it be different for actors? Especially one that didn’t show her face. This whole thing is reminiscent of Valve threatening to sue S2 for allegedly making a similar character. Unsurprisingly, the threats went nowhere.
      - lelandfe 2y ago
        You've really contorted the facts here. This isn't a character, it's a voice. The voice sounds remarkably like Scarlett Johansson's.

limitedfrom 2y ago

I encourage you to look through this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

sillysaurusx 2y ago
1. The case is from 1988. That’s the year I was born. Societal norms are in a constant state of flux, and this one case from 36 years ago isn’t really an indication of the current state of how case law will play out. 2. Ford explicitly hired an impersonator. OpenAI hired someone that sounded like her, and it’s her natural voice. Should movies be held to the same standard when casting their actors? This is about as absurd as saying that you’re not allowed to hire an actor to play a role.
- lelandfe 2y ago
  Midler is actually quite similar. Midler didn't want to do a commercial, and refused an offer, so they hired a lookalike that fooled her friends. The appellate court held that Ford and its advertising agency had "misappropriated" Midler's voice. Waits v. Frito Lay, Inc was '92, and cited it. They used a Tom Waits-sounding voice on an original song, and Waits successfully sued: > Discussing the right of publicity, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict that the defendants had committed the “Midler tort” by misappropriating Tom Waits’ voice for commercial purposes. The Midler tort is a species of violation of the right of publicity that protects against the unauthorized imitation of a celibrity’s voice which is distinctive and widely known, for commercial purposes. https://tiplj.org/wp-content/uploads/Volumes/v1/v1p109.pdf https://tiplj.org/wp-content/uploads/Volumes/v1/v1p109.pdf Of course, who knows what a court will find at the end of this. There is precedent, however.
  - sillysaurusx 2y ago
    Thank you. I didn’t know it was similar specifically for voices in commercial use. That’s annoying, but we live in a country with lots of annoying laws that we nonetheless abide by. In this case I guess OpenAI just didn’t want to risk losing a court battle. I still think legal = moral is mistaken in general, and from a moral standpoint it’s bogus that OpenAI couldn’t replicate the movie Her. It would’ve been cool. But, people can feel however they want to feel about it, and my personal opinion is worth about two milkshakes. But it’s still strange to me that anyone has a problem with what they did.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 2y ago

If they told the voice actor to try to impersonate SJ, then Scarlett does have a case. That may not be how it should work, but it is very much how the law currently works.

asadotzler 2y ago
Not quite. All the had to do was tell themselves in discoverable email that they were going to seek out someone who sounded like ScarJo, or emails to the recruiter saying they wanted someone to mimic the Her voice.

hnburnsy 2y ago

>OpenAI's mistake was caving to SJ. They should have kept Sky and told SJ to get lost. If SJ sued, they could simply prove another voice actor was used and make the legitimate argument that SJ doesn't have a monopoly on voices similar to hers. Yes, they should have not reached out again, but now they are screwed. In no way will they want a trial and associated discovery. SJ can write her own ticket here.

Blackthorn 2y ago

> then why should OpenAI not find a similar voice and use that instead? That's assuming they did, right now they're asking us to pretty please trust them that their girlfriend from Canada is really real! She's real, you guys! No I can't show her to you.

gamblor956 2y ago

OpenAI caved immediately because they knew they would lose a lawsuit and be looking at a minimum of an 8 figure payout. Voice impersonation has been a settled matter for decades. It doesn't matter that they used another actress. What matters is that they tried to pass the voice off as SJ's voice several times.

gxyt6gfy5t 2y ago

Can they make that claim if SJ voice exists in the training data before fine tuning? We don’t know what they train on

FireBeyond 2y ago

> OpenAI's mistake was caving to SJ. ... If SJ sued, they could simply prove another voice actor was used and make the legitimate argument that SJ doesn't have a monopoly on voices similar to hers. Or... hear me out... maybe they couldn't prove that, which is why they caved. Caved within a day or so of her lawyers asking "So if it's not SJ's voice, whose is it?"

nojvek 2y ago

Sky sounded quite different to SJ. Them taking the voice off means they are accepting guilt it seems.