7 ms·
If the series of events was: They wanted Scar Jo, she said no. They found someone similar. That would be the end of the story. The question then was, why did
by bdcrazy 2y ago
If the series of events was: They wanted Scar Jo, she said no. They found someone similar. That would be the end of the story. The question then was, why did they reach out to her again immediately before putting it out there? That seems pretty strange to me.
- tptacek 2y agoI don't have more to say here other that I'm aware of the legal precedent being discussed here, read 2 cases, and in both the fact pattern cited in the decision involved specific instruction for the performer to mimic someone else's performance. That's all.
- pseudalopex 2y agoThey made a voice model from Scarlett Johansson recordings and hoped she would change her mind maybe.
- tptacek 2y agoThey did no such thing. The Washington Post found the voice actor they used, it's her natural speaking voice, she was not asked to perform ScarJo, and the movie "Her" wasn't mentioned.
- pseudalopex 2y agoSky was 1 voice model. OpenAI made and released 4 others. It is plausible they made and did not release at least 1. > The Washington Post found the voice actor they used They found the voice actor? Or OpenAI produced the actor's agent?
- tptacek 2y agoIs there reporting about this happening, or is this simply something you think could have happened? Because a lot of things could have happened.
- pseudalopex 2y agoWhat does maybe mean? They said it seemed strange OpenAI contacted Johansson when they did. I countered this assumption. I believe an unreleased Scarlett Johansson voice model would not infringe her publicity rights. Do you disagree?
- jgalt212 2y agoparallel construction?