OpenAl is sticking to its story that it never intended to copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice when seeking an actor for ChatGPT’s “Sky” voice mode.

This all “feels personal," the voice actress said, "being that it’s just my natural voice and I’ve never been compared to her by the people who do know me closely.”

This comes at a time when many studios are otherwise intrigued by the idea of using AI for things like digital effects but remain, after a long history of avoiding copyright conflicts, hesitant to connect with any company potentially viewed as stealing artists’ work without consent, Reuters reported.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
70 points
*

.

permalink
report
reply
0 points
*

.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

Parody is supposed to be comedic in nature. This is not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Look up parody in the dictionary, 'cause that isn’t what it means.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

I mean maybe you should be looking it up in case law, because what it means in a dictionary is irrelevant relative to case law.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

If the voice actor actually made an obvious parody of the HER voice (as an example giving it an over the top southern drawl to subvert expectations about southern ludditism) but parodies can’t just be “like that thing but we hired a cheaper voice actor”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points
*

What doing satire has to do with the matter?

How do you think it would go if OpenAI had used actors with the voices of Biden or Trump and Altman had tweeted “POTUS” just before the event?

Altman knew exactly what he was doing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points
*

.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

I strongly feel she has a case. Altman may not have violated criminal law, but he has used backdoor marketing, climbing on her shoulders to sell a product.

For example

https://www.iptechblog.com/2023/06/no-first-amendment-right-to-confuse-consumers-high-court-holds/

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Provided no “modifications” or “instruction” to make it sound like…

permalink
report
parent
reply
78 points

The issue is Altman made it murky. If my name is Joe McDonald, I’m allowed to open a hamburger shop. What I can’t do is purposefully confuse customers for my personal gain.

permalink
report
parent
reply
46 points

This isn’t parody, it’s image and likeness. It is much less murky when they are promoting it as “Her” as in the movie starring Johansson as the voice of a sentient AI assistant.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points
*

It is not allowed. See Tom Waits vs. Frito Lay. Vocal timbre is considered to part of a celebrities’ “likeness” and reproducing it to imply endorsement will get you landed in court. ScarJo is a huge Tom Waits fan so she knows the story.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-14 points

ScarJo is a huge Tom Waits fan

My apologies to Tom Waits.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Lol. You should read the reviews of the album. They are decidedly …mixed. Everyone seems to agree that it wasn’t your typical Hollywood vanity project - she took it seriously as an artistic endeavour.

That having been said her singing voice is freakishly low and the mixing is muddy and obscuring. It shows something that can’t be immediately dismissed, but the poor execution doesn’t allow you to grasp exactly what that spark might be.

It’s worth listening to once.

Eta: Town With No Cheer https://youtube.com/watch?v=qsDaaVIvXig

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

That’s not the same thing, they hired an impersonator and copied something really distinct about how he talked. Johansen’s deep mid western accent is not distinct, and Sky was not doing an impression.

Lots of women speak like Scarlet. The first person to become famous cannot copyright a way millions of people speak and act.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The point is they said “we want Scarlett” and when she said no, they went ahead with someone similar and implied a connection. That’s definitely unethical, and arguably illegal.

That said, while she definitely has a case, I fully expect it to be settled fairly quickly, because I don’t think she’d win.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

Parody is legal. This is not parody.

To be fair, I have not looked into this case enough to have an opinion. Just wanted to point out the logic error.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

So like, can you a record label sue another band for ‘sounding like’ the band that they are promoting?

It was more of a thing in the 90s, but there were always competing follow up bands (Sublime being followed by 311) that chased the sound of another artist.

Like should NSync be sued for being a boy band following in Backstreet Boys wake?

Not parody, but mimicry is fundamental to art.

I suppose my rather extreme views on copyright and up leaves me the outlier here, but I think the whole thing is rather absurdist.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Chat GPT is not art, it is an LLM sold by a business that courted Scarlett Johansson to endorse and/or voice their LLM.
She refused and they released an LLM named Sky with a similar voice and personality to the Sam (Samantha) character she played, while also openly referencing the Her movie with their social media.

If I created an “AI” ska band that sounded like Sublime and trained it on Bradley Nowell’s singing voice, with a similar-sounding vocalist to fill in the gaps, I’m pretty sure Sub Lime featuring Badly Novell would get fucked so hard by copyright attorneys that all I would have left is my dog and some weed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yeah this was the case right from the start. I’m not sure why people are just coming around now, I guess it helps that the actual voice actor has spoken out so it’s concrete proof that she at least exists.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It was murky from the getgo. Open AI immediately came out and stated it was the voice of a hired voice actor and that all four or five voice options were, and that it was the voice actor using her own natural voice. The media has just chose to mostly completely ignore that and instead wanted to run with rumors that they stole ScarJos voice from the movie or by sampling a bunch of her work, because that sounds way more gossipy.

To your 2nd point though. The trump voicing stuff is a clear and apparent “parody” which is protected to be legally used. Even when Weird AL does his music, he doesn’t actually have to get the artists permission. He just always has because he’s a world treasure.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yes well Sam (I’m a total dipshit, but it’s ok cause I’m rich now) Altman tweeting out “Her” on launch day did not help matters.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Very true right there. It could just as easily be described as him flaunting technology like what was in the movie, though. I posted a side by side a bit ago and the voices are pretty different.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

What would be neat is if ScarJo sues and wins, could the Jane Doe voice actor then hit ScarJo with an antitrust lawsuit? I mean, if the poor lady can’t get work because the market for “that voice” is dominated by one actor: then what?

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 20K

    Posts

  • 511K

    Comments