Scarlett Johansson Warned OpenAI To Not Use Her Voice 241
Actress Scarlett Johansson's legal team has sent two letters to OpenAI, demanding the company disclose how it developed an AI personal assistant voice that the actress claims sounds uncannily similar to her own. The controversy was prompted after OpenAI held a live demonstration of the voice, dubbed "Sky," which many observers compared to Johansson's voice in the 2013 film "Her."
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman had approached Johansson months prior and as recently as two days before the event, proposing to license her voice for the new ChatGPT voice assistant, but she declined the offer, she said. Johansson said she was "shocked and angered" at the similarity between the AI voice and her own, stating, "in a time when we are all grappling with deepfakes and the protection of our own likeness, our own work, our own identities, I believe these are questions that deserve absolute clarity." OpenAI denied any connection between Johansson and the "Sky" voice, claiming it was developed from the voice of another actress. The company paused using the voice in its products on Monday.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman had approached Johansson months prior and as recently as two days before the event, proposing to license her voice for the new ChatGPT voice assistant, but she declined the offer, she said. Johansson said she was "shocked and angered" at the similarity between the AI voice and her own, stating, "in a time when we are all grappling with deepfakes and the protection of our own likeness, our own work, our own identities, I believe these are questions that deserve absolute clarity." OpenAI denied any connection between Johansson and the "Sky" voice, claiming it was developed from the voice of another actress. The company paused using the voice in its products on Monday.
If she feels that strongly about clarity (Score:3, Interesting)
Lawsuit (Score:5, Interesting)
But they took it down anyway, as a gesture of goodwill. I'm sorry, this case is a loser for ScarJo if she wants to sue. That's why she won't.
I mostly agree with your assessment, the only caveat I'd add is that it wouldn't be just Johansson suing, but, most likely, SAG, along with a high-priced law firm that specializes in actor's likeness lawsuits, suing under New York's right of publicity laws. I know this because it's already happened.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.... [hollywoodreporter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I recall reading about this earlier, and there are some precedents for this, but they have something that absent here. In them company sued clearly tried to misrepresent who's voice it was being played (usually in ads). The goal was clearly to generate an image of a celebrity's voice.
Here that seems entirely absent.
And the lawsuit you link talks about a contract violation. Where actor had an actual contract for academic usage of his voice only and got paid for that, and they instead used it as a default voi
Re:Lawsuit (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The entire point of this AI is not having to sample actors voices.
Re:If she feels that strongly about clarity (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire point of this AI is not having to sample actors voices.
The point here is to closely approximate a celebrity voice and then profit handsomely from it. The entire business case of these AI Bros do seem to be predicated on mass harvesting other results of peoples hard work without permission or compensations and then banking all the profits for themselves. On the plus side, Ayn Rand would have approved of such staggering levels of selfishness and entitlement.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the number of people who make a living off impersonating other people's voices, you're not as smart as you think you are.
Re: (Score:2)
and you cant comprehend sarcasm, nice playing with ya.
Re:If she feels that strongly about clarity (Score:4, Insightful)
We run into Poe's Law here, as it is not clear what the poster is intending to mock exactly.
But whether claiming that impersonation is inherently illegal, or inherently legal it is false either way.
And actual actor can impersonate another actor quite freely, but not pretend to be that other actor in actuality. All impersonators rely on the audience realizing that it is indeed an impersonation. They are using their own voice, though sounding like someone else. Everyone understands this.
An actor, or an entity using an actor, cannot use the impersonation to give the impression that it is indeed that other actor.
Re: (Score:2)
Only exception is when the other actor, or their estate, allows it.
Re: (Score:2)
The question here is when did a significant portion of people listening to the AI reasonably think it was Scarlett Johansson?
Re:If she feels that strongly about clarity (Score:5, Insightful)
But have they said that? This is the simplest thing in the world to counter against, assuming it was done that way:
"We hired professional voice actress "suchandsuch suchandsuch" and here are some clips of her recording the prompts. Any confusion is purely on the part of the listener"
Like they very well could have done exactly that and this is all nonsense but all the circumstantial things we have to go on, Altman's tweets, the fact they reached out to her, the fact they took it down.
If this is all a misunderstanding OpenAI is acting awfully sus.
Re: (Score:2)
What is "acting sus"?
New term to me....thanks in advance!
Re: (Score:2)
That's me doing a "how do you do, fellow kids?"
https://www.today.com/parents/... [today.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm..I guess I'm old, I never thought suspect or suspicious were too long to write/type/speak in the past and needed to be abbreviated....
Re: (Score:2)
What is "acting sus"?
New term to me....thanks in advance!
It means that the response from OpenAI introduces a feeling of tension involving a major second actress; we will have to see how it all gets resolved.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so you think that ScarJo owns the other actress' voice...
No, she owns her own identity and an attempt to commercially leverage that without her permission is illegal. Altman and OpenAI explicitly drew the comparison between Sky and Her, without disclosing the actual source of the voice which was chosen and intended intended to be confused with Johannsen's. Misleading appropriating an actor's identity is illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
And, BTW, actors and companies lose the exclusive rights to their own identities if they do not take legal action when efforts to appropriate those identities occur. It is necessary to defend those ownership rights to keep them.
Re: (Score:2)
This is all under the purview of IP law. Buggy whip manufacturers would not be allowed to steal the car makers designs and make unlicensed clones.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously suggesting that the actress they used was cloned from ScarJo's genetic material and thus constitutes a derivative work?
Holy goddamned batman, this is the exact question everyone is asking. If they hired an actress to do the work then it's pretty clear cut fair use or they'll be fine. ScarJo can not like it but it's reasonable to say "if you think it's scarjo, that's on you, it's someone else."
If it was created wholecloth with some proprietary AI technology does it violate her likeness or make it derivative? Nobody is sure because this case if she took it to court would likely set that precedent but it sure feels like stea
Re: (Score:2)
If it is another actress has OpenAI confirmed that?
Not who it is, that I've seen. However, they have confirmed they used voice actors.
Why did they take it down?
CYA. It's safer to remove it until legal matters are settled. It's not like that voice alone is critical to operations.
Why does scarjo say she as asked months ago?
Maybe she was. OpenAI says the casting started in May 2023. They released the voices in Sep 2023, the same month she says she was contacted.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair, I will also put on my "lawyer - i am not a lawyer" hat on so let's start heding if we are taking me literally.
It's is more probable that OpenAI is not liable if they hired a professional voice actor to do this. It gives credibility to a coincidence theory.
We also have to take all the evidence as a whole.
If Sky was released and at the same time they said who the actress was, Altman makes no Tweets and they never ask Scarjo about anything. That case looks a lot different than the one we are looking a
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all what somebody is saying, you're the only person who keeps saying that.
There are 3 scenarios in front of you:
OpenAI hires a voice actress, she just happens to sound like Scarlett Johansen.
OpenAI hires a voice actress explicity because she sounds like Scarlett Johansen.
OpenAI hires a voice actress explicity because she sounds like Scarlett Johansen and instructs her to sound like her.
OpenAI hires a voice actress explicity because she sounds like Scarlett Johansen and instructs her to sound like her
Re: (Score:2)
The entire point of this AI is not having to sample actors voices.
No shit Sherlock. So what? Should we have allowed buggy whip manufacturers to outlaw cars because they'll make them unnecessary? Yes, AI is going to make voice actors go the way of buggy whip manufacturers, and thousands other professions before them. And the wold will be better for it, just like it was every time a piece of technology replaced the need for humans to do some type of labour.
What is your personal standard for "the world is better for it"? And do you allow for the possibility that your personal standard might not in fact be universally shared?
Validating her strength. (Score:2)
If she felt that strongly about it, she would have her vocal chords currently insured for millions. Does she, or is every other Scarlett look-alike and celebrity voice impressionist she hasn’t ever thought about much less tried to sue out of existence, about to gift-wrap the Streisand Effect her attitude so desperately deserves.
Hearing multi-millionaire professionals bitching about the highest form of paying a compliment in their profession, tends to be quite hypocritical. It’s like blaming yo
Re:Validating her strength. (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a lot of precedent for this though, someone doing an impression personally with their human vocal system cannot be copyrighted. Rich Little made an entire career off that concept. Two voice actors did every single celebrity impression on The Critic. It's also noted by long precedent that the actual actor is credited as the voice and it's fairly simple for anyone to know if what they heard was the person or an impersonator. Many actors do in fact insure aspects of their likeness as well as the general SAG protections, maybe ScarJo already does, that wouldn't exactly be public.
Question here is this is not a human who did the work of developing that skill but a machine that is built to use that voice to profit. It's pretty obvious Altman kinda boned himself by asking at all and his post on May 13 of just the word her [x.com] kinda establishes a mens rea for his thinking even if the voice is different.
I sorta hope this goes to court, will be an interesting case and will set an important legal precedent.
I agree except.... (Score:2)
They use the other voice actress's voice instead.
I thought the same thing you did before, they used some other actress so who cares if it sounds like SJ?
But between the contact with SJ and OpenAI pulling back the voice, that sort of indicates something is there.
I said this as a joke in a previous Slashdot story, but now those two things have me wondering - what if there is no "other voice actress"? What if that Sky voice is training AI on SJ's voice and then asking it to say whatever?
If it is from another
Re: (Score:2)
Did they take the other actress's voice and run it through an SJ filter to make a better match?
They bungled it, they could have hired Tara Strong or Grey DeLisle and gotten any voice they wanted. Or multiple any voices they wanted.
SJ doesn't even have that great of a voice. Claudia Jesse has a more relaxing voice, and I think she's done voice work as well.
On the other hand, Ashley Tisdale in Candace mode would be the wrong choice, although it might just be appropriate for an AI that will certainly tattle on
Re: (Score:2)
lol he's an asshole but this case is stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Hiring lawyers in our society is not a sign of anything more than having some cash burning a hole in her purse.
It isn't her voice.
They didn't pretend it is her.
She had no damages. Civil suits require harm. The nature of a civil suit is asking the court for monetary compensation and/or a change in behavior. She already got the change in behavior.
What is this about then?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're thinking of criminal law.
Basic lawfulness in a civil dispute (i.e. ScarJo sues OpenAI) aspires to judge based on the "preponderance of evidence" where ScarJo wants to show that it's more than 50% likely that OpenAI used her voice, and OpenAI wants to show it's less than 50% likely.
Despite the lack of need for either side to prove anything, if OpenAI really did hir
Re: (Score:2)
While you are right in a civil case the evidence id preponderance of evidence, as opposed to reasonable doubt they still have to show evidence to prove Open AI did this, its on them, they just have a lower standard of proof.
It would like me suing you saying you owe me $1000 its up to me to show that we had some sort of deal, not you to show some evidence that we didn't.
Don't take my word for it, I am not a lawyer:
https://bc-llp.com/what-is-the... [bc-llp.com]
States:
In a civil case, a plaintiff files a complaint and states both facts and legal grounds for the civil litigation. The plaintiff has the burden of proof, which means the plaintiff must convince the jury that the facts are as presented and that there is grounds for the case.
Re: I agree except.... (Score:2)
You clearly know nothing about law. This is not a criminal case, it's a civil suit. The standard is not "proof beyond reasonable doubt" but "preponderance of evidence"
In this case, the evidence is compelling: they tried hiring her, she said no, they went and faked her voice anyway, they advertised her involvement in a roundabout but transparent way and tried last minute to get her on board.
They will get shredded and she will get a big chunk of capital. The jury will see the bad faith and make the punishm
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly the concept of "they didn't have to use her voice" escapes you. They were trying to create the public impression that is was her voice - her professional identity in other words - without her permission. That is illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Working voice actors do corporate work all the time. Most of them in fact are not "Hollywood" people.
Re: (Score:2)
"They recorded a sound-alike BEFORE asking her to use her voice."
Did the choose that actress because she sounded like ScarJo or did they just pick a voice over actress who they later noticed happened to sound like her?
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter.
It is the other woman's voice not SJ.
It is not a crime to sound like someone else and cash in on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all but that's all in regards to a human performer and even if it's an impression I believe it's considered a "performance" under the law. I suppose in this case would a computer algorithm be under those some rules, is it doing a "performance"? I think that'll be up to the courts.
I think also if you can do an impression it's still illegal if you use it deceitfully, you can't go around tricking people into thinking you are that person to defraud things.
"I'm telling you Marge this will work. They'll
Re: (Score:2)
In this case OpenAI never said or implied it was her
No one saw that movie so that's not the basis for claiming anything.
She has suffered no measurable harm.
They pulled it right away when she whined about it
The voice is of another person, not her
Best of luck to her lawyers on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Likeness has precedent - Crispin Glover.
If the court determines the company deliberately made a product to resemble ' her' portrayal in a movie then the judgement may indeed favour Scarlett.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck to her lawyers proving:
1) it sounds like her
2) it was intended to sound like her
3) she suffered some measurable harm
4) anyone saw that movie, hahahaha
How many minutes was the other woman's voice online before they pulled it?
Where did they say, "This voice is SJ just like from that movie no one saw!"?
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a crime to sound like someone else and cash in on that.
It is a civil law violation to sound like someone else and cash in by trying to create the impression that actually is that someone. Impersonators always make it clear that they are impersonators.
Re: (Score:2)
Who says it sounds like her and was intended to?
Re: (Score:2)
...lets look at the facts: They recorded a sound-alike BEFORE asking her to use her voice....
Do you have a reference for that? The article says
Don't see any mention of a different voice actor's voice having already been recorded before they approached her.
Re:If she feels that strongly about clarity (Score:5, Interesting)
"They recorded a sound-alike BEFORE asking her to use her voice. So they just have some voice actress recorded who happens to sound like ScarJo. So far nothing illegal."
Under California law, soundalikes (pre-AI) are covered under the right to likeness.
https://www.authorsalliance.or... [authorsalliance.org]
So actually, not legal, if the intent was to take advantage of Scarlett Johansson's likeness. I believe one exception would be for parody under the "transformative use" clause.
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/... [fordham.edu]
Establishing that they reached out to Scarlett Johansson in an attempt to get her voice, in the context of their trying to tie their current product, either directly or indirectly to the movie Her, starring Scarlett Johansson, establishes intent. The intent: that they were trying to consciously tie the movie and the character depiction of the fictional AI, played by Scarlett Johansson, and that a reasonable person, not knowing that Scarlett Johansson had turned them down, might assume that she had given permission to them to use her likeness.
This is my understanding of the situation, I am not a lawyer.
Re: If she feels that strongly about clarity (Score:2)
You seem to think of law as dumb, inflexible and static, just like code is. It is not.
That's why there are courts: to rule on corner cases like "if I make a machine sounding just like someone in particular, is it the same as using their likeness?" And "can I do anything I want with someone's likeness?". And then "is it free speech for me to make that likeness say or do things that person does not want to?". And "am I causing damages to the person by doing this?"
These questions are critical for people earn
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, that's wrong on the law. There is definite precedent that you can't imitate an actress' performance for commercial means. In order for it to be fair use it has to have significant artistic merit behind the imitation performance. It's the difference between cosplay and publishing your fanfic for money. Only one of those is a protected activity.
Second, you're almost certainly wrong on how the voice assistant was made. OpenAI is known to have illegally scraped training data from myriad sources.
Re: (Score:2)
>> They recorded a sound-alike BEFORE asking her to use her voice
Cite for that claim?
>> they took it down anyway, as a gesture of goodwill
Maybe it was because of "legal counsel, who wrote two letters to Mr. Altman and OpenAl, setting out what they had done and asking them to detail the exact process by which they created the ‘Sky’ voice.”
Re: (Score:2)
If she really feels like she needs to make this clear as a legal precedent, let her sue, and lose, and waste her own money.
Maybe she will lose after a long lawsuit, maybe she will win. However OpenAI will definitely be the loser, as discovery will aim at proving the intent of OpenAI which means massive access to their emails and internal comunications. We will get to see a ton of internal dirt from OpenAI, regardless of who will win. So yeah, bring on the lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Also interesting is that to her their pitch was that her voice would "help consumers to feel comfortable with the seismic shift concerning humans and AI." Which sounds amazingly creepy. Next someone will try to get a celebrity to convince the public that smoking is healthy, fentanyl is good for international trade, and to please get an iris scan soon.
Re: (Score:2)
But they took it down anyway, as a gesture of goodwill.
I am not sure about the "gesture of goodwill" thing. they probably just thought they could lose a suit and set a bad (for them) precedent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> They recorded a sound-alike BEFORE asking her to use her voice.
Isn't the central allegation here that, in fact, they had been asking to use her voice (and she had been declining) for some time?
Also, if they thought the voice was completely unrelated to ScarJo's, why did they seek her permission repeatedly?
Re: (Score:2)
If she really feels like she needs to make this clear as a legal precedent,.They recorded a sound-alike BEFORE asking her to use her voice..
Unless the facts turn out to be that they leveraged actual recordings of her voice from her films. I have no inside information, do you? What basis do you have for asserting that they hired a sound-alike?
Even if it is the latter, I don’t know that there isn’t existing case-law (IANAL). I do recall HarleyDavidson defended their trademark sound against Japanese clones (and succeeded). It may well be the case that actors likenesses and sound are inherently protected (or at least protectable, perhap
Re: (Score:2)
They use the other voice actress's voice instead. Still nothing illegal or even wrong
Now consider this scenario: ScarJo's capricious complaint about the voice causes openAI to Drop the voice And Cancel the deal with the new actress. As a result, the new Voice Actress gets upset and files a tortious interference suit against ScarJo.
Let's assume the Licensing process would involve OAI paying the new actress a Usage fee over time based on how many times the model is used. As a result, the new Actress is
Re: If she feels that strongly about clarity (Score:2)
Not interested with those tats.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If she feels that strongly about clarity (Score:2)
What is your justification for calling her a hoe?
Re: (Score:2)
What is your justification for calling her a hoe?
Is she a Hollywood actress? Check.
Is she not ugly as sin? Check.
Is she getting top roles and making money? Check.
Hollywood is not a meritocracy. The casting couch is real. I'm not going to google the countless stories for you but there's this guy named Harvey you may have heard of. He wasn't the first or the last. He's just the one you've heard of.
So... nothing, then. kthx
Re: (Score:2)
Yes 100% justified. You're welcome.
Your ignorance, denial of reality and unwillingness to spend 5 seconds on Google or acknowledge HW is your failure not mine.
Re: (Score:2)
You provided no indication of that person being a 'hoe'. That is indeed a failure on your part, especially since, according to you, the info is readily available.
You made the assertion, you are either right or wrong. I just asked you to show your work, there's nothing here you can successfully blame me for.
Re: (Score:2)
I provided sufficient information. You can reject what's right in front of your face if you like. No problem. That's on you.
Are you some SJ fan boy or something? Do you have her marvel action figure next to your bed?
Re: (Score:2)
I provided sufficient information.
You provided 0.0 sufficient information. You even tried to submit imaginary information: "He wasn't the first or the last. He's just the one you've heard of." Don't you wish you had something substantial? ;)
Are you some SJ fan boy or something? Do you have her marvel action figure next to your bed?
My favorite part of your attempt to turn this on me is if you were right you'd also be admitting that I likely know a lot more about her than you do. Just keep on yappin'! Heh.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is being turned on you. Your silly fanboyism is no defense of a Hollywood 304.
"Oh it's SJ! I loved her in that black leather cat suit! My dick is so hard! *swooon* Don't you dare talk smack about my girl!"
Lmao
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. Somehow finding Scarlett Johansen attractive is a form of insult.
oh and i never actually defended that person. I didn't assert anything about her at all. I simply asked you your justification for labeling her. still waiting for substance here, "Lmao".
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.urbandictionary.co... [urbandictionary.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm relieved. It would complicated things with my wife.
How do you even write out the weekly chore list once a husband and wife start adding girlfriends and boyfriends to the household?
Re:If she feels that strongly about clarity (Score:4, Funny)
Polyamorous house chores are commonly laid out in Gantt charts.
Also depends if your team is doing agile or waterfall.
Re: (Score:2)
She did seem deeply disappointed. At least it was quick.
Michael Caine did not sue (Score:4, Interesting)
He tells in an interview his voice, actually a voice very much like his and with his mannerisms is everywhere, satnav, birthday cards ad so on and there is nothing he can do about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt he tried hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a good look... (Score:5, Insightful)
OpenAI has absolutely not tended in the direction of being over-cautious when doing rights clearance; they've been quite bold about the "no, anything we do to anything is transformative" theory of the copyright implications of how they've assembled their training set and what comes out; and never you mind those verbatim bits they are just a fabrication by our enemies.
Unless the asking was some weird, pathetic, Altman-things-Johansson-will-be-flattered thing; it can only be assumed that they asked because they believed that the permission was actually relevant; which seems like a bad sign for their chances.
The speed with which they folded under pressure, despite allegedly having an infringement-free version totally based on someone who did authorize the use of their voice who just sounds kind of similar, also doesn't suggest much internal confidence in the strength of their position.
Re: (Score:2)
>> I'm in no position to say how it will shake down in court.
If I was the judge I'd simply side-by-side some phrases said both by Johansson and the voice actress they supposedly used.
Why is Altman doing licensing negotiation? (Score:2)
She's probably going to land a huge pay day now, much moreso than if Altman hadn't involved himself. Doing it two days before is dangerously stupid, it's defacto an admission of guilt and removes your plausible deniability. Altman destroyed OpenAI's bargaining position.
Does Altman need a handler like Elon?
She should sue the tits off 'em (Score:2)
How naive do you have to be? (Score:2)
I'm still waiting for an explanation (Score:2)
...as to why a "feature" should be offered, much less legally allowed, to fake someone's voice.
Give me one justification.
Re: (Score:2)
Your assumption is that they intentionally faked her voice. I agree that it seems likely, but I'd like to play devil's advocate for a moment:
There are certain visual things like the golden ratio that are innately pleasing to humans. As a musician myself I can tell you that the same things exist in the audio world: certain sounds, vocal attributes and stylings that the human ear innately finds pleasing.
( It's partially why almost every Gen Z/Millenial female singer sounds like Taylor Swift. 30 years ago near
They Should Have Used Mr. T's Voice. (Score:2)
I almost pity the fools.
Fuck off, Scarlett. (Score:2)
Sorry, but as I posted in the previous thread on this subject:
There are probably millions of women who "sound like Scarlett Johanssen".
She quite reasonably owns all rights to HER VOICE.
Not "every voice that's even slightly like hers".
(FWIW this will ultimately be the death of any sort of voice-actor IP fight vs AI that's coming because voices aren't THAT different. Impersonators are a thing, and any studio that doesn't want to pay $100k for Tom Hanks' voice can pay $1000 for a "Tom Hanks Impersonator's Voic
How can she say a voice is hers? (Score:2)
Is her voice unique among everyone on the planet? How can she claim a voice is hers? Next she will claim ownership of a blood type.
ai voices will always sound like someone (Score:2)
there will never be a unique voice for AI, it will always sound like someone. I foresee a lot of lawsuits over this, especially from celebrities.
precedent exists in favor of Scarlet here (Score:4, Interesting)
Scarlet Johansson would have easily achieved these requirements and the payout would have been much more spectacular than what Bette Midler received.
Easy to prove (Score:3)
Re: But who is Sky? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have they announced this, I tried looking it up but it seems like just everyone's best guess, there are even Reddit posts back to October making that guess.
It also is a strange thing since Jones is a well known celebrity in her own right so why wouldn't you just announce that up front? Yeah it's not as memey as getting Johannsen but it's more interesting than just a unknown VA which ironically is the smarter move: they are usually more talented in voices than an on-camera actor, you would have access to the
Re: (Score:2)
Great idea!!
That would be a really cool idea indeed!!!
Re: (Score:2)
they could have maybe reached out to the Roddenberry estate and got permission to use Majel Barret's voice and then we get our TNG computer interface finally.
Warning: Fatal exposure in 17 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Scarlet Johansson Sent Two Letters (Score:3)
Please stop this pretense that someone can buy a book, rent a DVD, watch a show, and enjoy it all --many times-- but an LLM can't.
I can't buy a book and resell its contents. Neither can an LLM. I can buy an engineering textbook, teach myself the subject matter and then (subject to state licensing laws) resell that knowledge when applied to various problems. How this would be applied to Scarlett's case, I don't know. I imagine that she would have to prove that her voice was a part if the training dataset. And that both she and the LLM didn't both use the same pre-existing sources to learn to speak.
Re: Scarlet Johansson Sent Two Letters (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Payback's a bitch, though: that other actress can also have ScarJo's tongue cut out, too. A tongue for a tongue: the perfect justice system! ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing you just said relates to this case in ANY way.
Did you even read the summary?
Re: Scarlet Johansson Sent Two Letters (Score:2)
Stuff is either free to use without a license or it's not.
You're oversimplifying. There is fair use and infringing use. I think a fair use paradigm that preserves human property rights over their own likeness is better than one that allows VCs to turn us all into virtual pornstars and inadvertent and uncompensated machine trainers. But you are so enthusiastic for the latter scenario that I may be missing something.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright has been a problem ever since Gutenberg's contraption, writers guilds have power that goes way back
Copyright was an issue way before that.
Re: (Score:2)
So how do you think it would work out for me if I had a brand of condoms and had Mickey Mouse and a bunch of Disney princesses extolling their virtues in a radio ad? After all, I just hired voice actors, right?
I mean I really want to hear this ad...but still.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you would get crushed by Disney because that's an entirely different situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it? Voices are not subject to trademark protection and a copyright only exists to the actual tracks in question.
I think I might have a better chance of getting away with my condom ad than a LLM-generated analogue of Johannson's voice. I suspect that's what her legal team thinks also.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the Hollywood school of math where doubling your investment doesn't count...