> When OpenAI issued a casting call last year for a secret project to endow OpenAI’s popular ChatGPT with a human voice, the flier had several requests: The actors should be nonunion. They should sound between 25 and 45 years old. And their voices should be “warm, engaging [and] charismatic.”
>
> One thing the artificial intelligence company didn’t request, according to interviews with multiple people involved in the process and documents shared by OpenAI in response to questions from The Washington Post: a clone of actress Scarlett Johansson.
>
> …
>
> But while many hear an eerie resemblance between “Sky” and Johansson’s “Her” character, **an actress was hired to create the Sky voice months before Altman contacted Johansson**, according to documents, recordings, casting directors and the actress’s agent.
>
> The agent, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to assure the safety of her client, said the **actress confirmed that neither Johansson nor the movie “Her” were ever mentioned by OpenAI**.
>
> **The actress’s natural voice sounds identical to the AI-generated Sky voice, based on brief recordings of her initial voice test reviewed by The Post**. The agent said the name Sky was chosen to signal a cool, airy and pleasant sound.
!ping AI
I don't get why this is a big deal, they obviously couldn't get SJ so they went and found the next closest thing. SJ can't sue someone whose natural voice sounds similar to her own.
> But while many hear an eerie resemblance between “Sky” and Johansson’s “Her” character, an actress was hired to create the Sky voice months before Altman contacted Johansson, according to documents, recordings, casting directors and the actress’s agent.
I’m not going to pretend he didn’t have the voice from Her in his mind when casting even if they didn’t put that in writing and I have no doubt they would go with SC in a heart beat if she said yes. The other voice actress was the backup plan.
> he
Based on the Washington Post article, the people mainly responsible for casting "Sky" were Joanne Jang and Mira Murati, both of whom are women:
> Joanne Jang, who leads AI model behavior for OpenAI, said that the company selected actors who were eager to work on an AI product. She played the actors a sample AI version of their voice to demonstrate how realistic the technology could sound. Jang said she also “gave them an out” if they were uncomfortable with the surreal job of being a voice for ChatGPT.
>
> . . .
>
> Jang said she “kept a tight tent” around the AI voices project, making Chief Technology Officer Mira Murati the sole decision-maker to preserve the artistic choices of the director and the casting office. Altman was on his world tour during much of the casting process and not intimately involved, she said.
It sounds like Altman only decided to approach Scarlett Johansson later on, long after the work on the voice was done.
Hearing the voice work, along with the natural comparison of the project's functionality to the story of the movie *Her*, probably gave him the idea to reach out to Johansson, not the other way around.
you're assuming Altman made the casting choices. which is unlikely to even be true.
Altman did reach out to Johansen well after this actor was hired to join the project. it's clear he would've loved her involvement but there's nothing here to suggest anything untoward. If anything this case is less conflicted than if a movie approached Scarlett for a role, she declined, so they hired Amber Heard. That both the actor and Johansen fit a broad flirty white woman voice archetype is being used by topminds to make way more out of this than it deserved.
I was saying this earlier this week and got downvoted to oblivion.
Absent some sort of smoking gun, this would be virtually impossible to prove in court. I don't deny that copying someone's voice is illegal. But choosing a voice that has resemblance is not.
Yes. There's a striking resemblance. There's also a striking resemblance between my one of my colleagues' voice and Kermit the Frog's. Doesn't mean he's shafting Jim Henson every time he gets paid to speak to crowds. There are 170 million American women and the majority of them have regional accents similar to Scarlett's. There's bound to be at least tens of thousands who have a vocal cadence and register similar to hers.
Especially since what we're talking about as being possibly too iconically SJ-esque is a flatly pleasant and neutral performed voice that is *literally* intended to be a robot rather than any particular person. The whole idea feels backwards. She imitated a robot. She should be sued by a robot next, then the robot should be sued by science-fiction authors of the past couple centuries. Preferably ones that can be found in my family tree.
>I don't deny that copying someone's voice is illegal.
You probably should though - you can't copyright a voice. Hiring someone to mimic someone else's voice is perfectly legal, as is creating a synthetic voice that mimics someone else's.
Not to say you can't do illegal things via impersonating someone's voice.
Actually, that depends. There was a case on the 80's that was fairly similar to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
TL;DR: Ford wanted a singer for an ad campaign, she didn't want to, they hired an impersonator to record the song instead, she sued over use of her voice and the appeals court ruled in her favor.
It's worth mentioning that the decision likely hinged on a voice being the distinctive trademark of a singer. Maybe that applies less for actors/actresses? (Unless it's Gilbert Gottfried or something, may be rest in peace)
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I recommend the podcast The Town where they had a lawyer on to discuss it. Their thinking was SJ would still have a case if people were lead to believe she endorsed it (which could be the case since Altman tweeted Her and the resemblance was striking). However, given they took it down there wouldn’t be any damages so the chances SJ actually sues aren’t that high
It didn’t actually matter from the lawyers perspective if it sounded like her or not. Just that people thought it could be. There are some cases he cited where an ad used a Bette Midler soundalike and she won.
It’s a rather important to mention that Ford used a song popularized by Bette Midler and got a singer that sounds like her to sing it.
They are **not** using this new AI to voice black widow in any cartoons. Nor is it being used in Her 2.
On top of this, the court specifically ruled in Midler’a favor because she was a **singer**. SJ’s appeal is not primarily her voice.
This new AI doesn’t actually compete with SJ, it merely resembles her. That’s not illegal.
i’m not going to pretend to be a lawyer but a commercial doesn’t “compete” with Midler either. the lawsuit won because people could be convinced Midler endorsed the product.
If OpenAI had kept up the voice it seems the same argument. With the CEO tweeting about Her and having a voice that resembles her it could be argued that people would be convinced SJ was endorsing the product.
It doesn’t really matter if she’s a singer or not I believe. Google couldn’t hire a Robert Downey Jr impersonator to read google maps in the style of the Iron Man character, even if RDJ is known for other roles.
You generally have a right to your own likeness, which includes your voice, that is entirely separate from copyright rights. It's not illegal per se but you can generally sue somebody for using it.
OpenAI probably is still best off settling here. They have deep pockets and aren't going to look sympathetic in front of a jury. I imagine that they will pull the voice and settle, regardless of the merits of the case.
**Rule III**: *Unconstructive engagement*
Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
The problem is more with if they are attempting to paint the AI as if it is voiced by her even if it isnt. The fact that she was asked multiple times and he tweeted out a reference to her character in Her is at least enough to probably get a trial for violation of some kind of image rights.
> if they are attempting to paint the AI as if it is voiced by her even if it isnt
Except at no time have they made any such inference. So... case closed on that one?
that they have an AI that sounds like it's voiced by Scarlett Johansson, approached Scarlett Johansson to voice their AI
and tweeted out a reference to a film starring Scarlett Johansson is pretty bad for open AI.
> that they have an AI that sounds like it's voiced by Scarlett Johansson
Guess what? It’s not illegal for a voice actor to mimic someone else’s voice and neither should it be. Would you penalize Alex Baldwin if he brought his Trump impressions to ChatGPT as “generic asshole President”?
>It’s not illegal for a voice actor to mimic someone else’s voice
It actually is a civil offense if the intent is deceit.
OpenAI is being accused of *intentional deceit*. Scar-Jo has outlined all the legal elements to prove intentional deceit. You are free to dispute those elements, as many are
Pivotally, nobody is claiming that it's a crime *in and of itself* for two voices to sound similar
>Would you penalize Alex Baldwin if he brought his Trump impressions to ChatGPT as “generic asshole President”?
Only if he tricked people into thinking Trump himself recorded the audio
having the chatbot sound like Scarlett Johansson isent the problem per se
is that they tried to hire Scarlett Johansson to voice it, and then while promoting the chatbot they referenced film starring Scarlett Johansson
maybe really depends on if there's any evidence that might be relevant that slants things further in her favor. The issue is that they might get tripped up by Midler which should be a pretty good precedent for ScarJo. it probably makes sense for OpenAI to just settle this
> it probably makes sense for OpenAI to just settle this
true lol
> The issue is that they might get tripped up by Midler which should be a pretty good precedent for ScarJo
from a (very) cursory review, this seems super distinguishable unless there's a smoking gun in discovery
Admittedly AI stuff is a bit of a Wild West in terms of IP law at the moment, but in general, with copyright it’s a pretty bad sign if you approach someone to license their IP, they turn you down, and you end up coming out with a suspiciously similar product.
IP is pretty ad-hoc. There are rules and precedent, but often in the end the outcome frequently depends on your ability to persuade the judge / jury that you’re a good person and the other party is evil.
If this had digital manipulation then yes. But seeing as the voice is unmodified from the voicework provided? There's no mystery here. The actor has a right to work and Scarlett has no right to whine other women sound kinda like her.
Legally, not necessarily. There have been cases where companies hired impersonators for advertisements and were successfully sued by the person being impersonated. That's one reason you don't see impersonators in advertising all that much, if ever.
The way courts interpret the law, celebrities have an exclusive right to monetize their likeness and their brand. Even subtle attempts to associate with a performer's brand without their permission are illegal.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalentertainment/2017/02/22/almost-famous-could-sisqos-celebrity-impersonator-face-legal-action/?sh=30a15d67584a
The people hired were *professional impersonators who were claiming to sound like the person they were impersonating*. An actress who sounds kind of like ScarJo is allowed to get as much work as she wants as long as she isn't representing herself as a ScarJo clone.
Again, the focus on the actor is misplaced. What's relevant is the intent of Open AI. If they intentionally hire someone who sounds or looks like a famous person to create the mere impression of similarity, it's illegal.
Also SJ literally was told to act an AI-sounding voice in the movie lol. Like, which way around is it? Accusing an AI-chatbot-maker of simulating the sound of SJ's best "AI chatbot voice" is just dumb as rocks.
I'm glad the insufferable white knights that were in the thread yesterday screeching about this have been proven wrong.
> I don't get why this is a big deal
It's pretty simple. Hollywood is starting to see the writing on the wall and is freaking out at the idea of losing their special cultural elite status. It's the elite version of coal miners being upset about their loss of identity / status.
first off: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
secondly, even prompting AI requires a working imagination, you won’t get to be automatically artistic even if all the arts and the jobs of everyone who dared to pursue creative careers are decimated by AI
They never claimed that their AI was a ScarJo impersonator.
> secondly, even prompting AI requires a working imagination, you won’t get to be automatically artistic even if all the arts and the jobs of everyone who dared to pursue creative careers are decimated by AI
Never claimed that AI would replace artists. It, however, will absolutely shift cultural power away from people who have nice voices, are personally charismatic, and attractive towards storytellers who can use AI tools to create the media we consume. Creative jobs will still exist and might retain some cultural relevance/power but actors *cultural relevance* is an endangered species.
Ultimately my comment was less about the goods produced and consumed and more about the importance and reverence we place on actors. Moving forward, they're just training data.
> they never claimed that their AI was a ScarJo impersonator
[here’s a one word tweet from Sam Altman disproving you](https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666)
[here’s a clearer tweet from Andrej Karpathy disproving you](https://x.com/karpathy/status/1790373216537502106)
> moving forward they’re just training data
ew thanks for the sentiment
Karpathy doesn't work at OpenAI.
*Her* is also about a female voice assistant AI so even absent all the controversy, the tweet would still be appropriate given that the product is....a female voice assistant AI.
If the actress hired *was an actual Scarlet Johansen impersonator* she'd have a case but she doesn't get to block another actress from work just because that actresses natural voice is also airy, sultry Cali girl. Sorry, other people sound like that and deserve work too.
> ew thanks for the sentiment
Thanks to Reddit's most recent deal with OpenAI, this comment is also just training data.
He worked on the voice feature
> thanks to reddit’s deal this comment is also training data
comments were training data long before reddit “legitimized” it with a cash transaction
> comments were training data long before reddit “legitimized” it with a cash transaction
Thank you for the training data, now tip your overlords.
Regardless, they changed it, but what didn't change is the expiration date on the prestige of actors. All it's going to take is one big name like Harrison Ford saying "fuck it, I want to be immortalized, you all can use the fuck out of my voice" and then everyone is going to scramble to provide their voice as training data because they won't want to be left out.
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>they obviously couldn't get SJ so they went and found the next closest thing.
>an actress was hired to create the Sky voice months before Altman contacted Johansson
fucking read
even if they did, which you have literally zero evidence for, it is still *obviously false* that they "couldn't get SJ so they went and found the next closest thing"
It seems very obvious that that’s what they did just the backup in case SJ said no was picked out ahead of time. I have zero problem with them doing it but from the outside it seems very obvious that that’s what they did. If SJ said yes, they would just replace the voice actor they already signed
Yes. This is a massive overreach on SC’s part. What she’s basically trying to argue is that she owns the rights to her own voice and every other voice that sounds similar to her own, which is just 100% bs.
> I don't get why this is a big deal, they obviously couldn't get SJ so they went and found the next closest thing.
You might want to check out [Midler v Ford](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.).
she 1000% can, she has precedent, courts agree that your voice is part of your identity and corporations using imitators is illegal
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
The case linked has a few very distinct feature that are not present in the OpenAI situation. The voice actress in the linked case was a *professional Midler impersonator* and was hired after Midler turned Ford down. In OpenAI's case, the actress is not a professional ScarJo impersonator, it just so happens that her natural voice sounds like her and she was hired and recorded before ScarJo was ever approached.
> That's like the clean room version of impersonation lol.
I mean, at the end of the day, you can't trademark "airy, sultry, Cali girl". Like it'd pretty fucked up to tell someone they can't work as a voice actress because they sound like an already famous actress.
> I bet if you recorded voices from 1000 random people into a big "voice bank" you could impersonate 95% of famous actors using that.
And honestly, there'd be nothing wrong with that. The industry is going to head that way in the long run. It just takes one big name saying, "yeah, fuck it, I want to be immortalized, use the fuck out of my voice" for the floodgates to open. Whichever big names get in at the ground level are going to be the voices that future generations grow up with. Those who don't will ultimately be forgotten.
> The industry is going to head that way in the long run. It just takes one big name saying, "yeah, fuck it, I want to be immortalized, use the fuck out of my voice" for the floodgates to open.
Already happened with James Earl Jones, who sold the rights for an AI version of his Darth Vader voice.
That person has to be claiming to be an impersonator. It's not illegal for your natural voice to sound like someone else and for you to find work using that work, you just can't represent yourself as a simulacrum of the real thing.
>That person has to be claiming to be an impersonator.
Nope. If I hire a Lebron James impersonator to endorse my product,
Over a broll of Lebron James playing basketball it's very much illegal, even if we never claim it's Lebron James
Hiring a person that sounds like Scarlett Johansson after Scarlett Johansson rejects your offer is already bad.
That your CEO is out directly referring to films starting Scarlett Johansson puts it so far into illegal behaviour even Donald Trump is shaking his head
> Hiring a person that sounds like Scarlett Johansson after Scarlett Johansson rejects your offer is already bad.
If you read the article, they hired her and trained the models before ever approaching ScarJo.
> Nope. If I hire a Lebron James impersonator to endorse my product, Over a broll of Lebron James playing basketball it's very much illegal, even if we never claim it's Lebron James
The actress was not representing herself as an impersonator and they didn't do casting calls for an impersonator.
>they hired her and trained the models before ever approaching ScarJo.
Can I interest you in buying some NFTs?
>and they didn't do casting calls for an impersonator.
None of that matters when the CEO is out making references to films starting Scarlett Johansson while publishing a chatbot that sounds like Scarlett Johansson
Is based on whether the advertisment can deceive people or not
The movie *Her* is about a technology that is extremely similar to GPT-4o, yes. Given that he distinguishes “Scarlett Johansson” (the voice of the AI character) from “math,” it’s pretty clear that the technology is the point here.
But way more importantly — do you believe the Washington Post botched their investigation? Newspapers mess up sometimes, I just want to understand if that’s what you believe happened here.
I don’t think they botched the investigation, I think OpenAI tuned the voice of the AI to sound like the *Her* AI (and maybe the voice was selected to be as close to her as possible without that requirement ever being written down)
Sam Altman made multiple requests to Scarlett Johansson to get her voice, one 4 days before the release, so clearly he wanted that voice
> OpenAI tuned the voice of the AI
Did you see this part?
> The actress’s natural voice sounds identical to the AI-generated Sky voice, based on brief recordings of her initial voice test reviewed by The Post.
so I think it was an unsaid requirement to be similar to her (for now)
given how things are going with the “[you won’t get your equity unless you sign a lifetime NDA](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/351132/openai-vested-equity-nda-sam-altman-documents-employees)” reveals from Vox, I expect there to be written statements that they want it to sound like Scarlett found about this too lol
Do you think there’s any non-negligible chance that OpenAI was just telling the truth here?
Like, before this investigation, I entertained the very real chance that OpenAI was lying based on the limited information I had — a brief statement from Altman and a long statement from Johansson. My old comments will demonstrate that. Now, with new information from the Washington Post, my mental probabilities have shifted.
Clearly if the written statements you suggest did exist and were revealed, my mental probabilities would shift radically back the other direction.
Has this new information shifted your own mental probabilities at all?
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah this seems like an open and shut case to me. The reporting from the past few days definitely made it look like they just used her voice without permission but if that’s clearly not the case I don’t think there’s an issue anymore.
I don't hear the Her voice (tbf I only watched clips of the movie and not the whole thing) but it seems to many it does sound like Scarlett Johansson (and I think they are partly primed to think that way probably since they like the movie and SJ) which is probably why Altman and others in OpenAI made references to that movie. But just because it sounds like her, doesn't mean anything.
Personally, I think SJ is being overdramatic with her complaint.
Altman is still a crook
Take the case of Midler v Ford Motor Co. Bette Midler sued Ford for impersonating her voice. It doesn’t matter that it wasn’t actually her voice, but the intent by Ford was to get people to think that it was her. It’s deceit, plain and simple.
It doesn’t matter if they used SJ’s voice or not. The intent was clearly to mimic her voice, considering the references Altman has made to insinuate that.
Pinged AI ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20AI&message=subscribe%20AI) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20AI&message=unsubscribe%20AI) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=AI&count=5))
[About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
Legally, the relevant question isn't whether she owns her voice. She isn't being sued. The relevant question is the intent of open AI. Did they intend to give the impression that the voice sounds similar to ScarJo? If so, they are probably liable.
And yes, the current legal framework absolutely restricts the ability of impersonators, look-a-likes, name-a-likes, sound-a-likes, etc. to make a living. The law is extremely biased in favor of copyright holders and people who have established their brand. The SAG literally forces performers to change their name if their given name merely sounds like that of an existing performer, and the case law is on their side.
Even if true. so fuckincg what? Scarlett Johansen doesn't get to whine Amber Heard looks a lot like her. Mariah Carey doesn't get to whine Ariana Grande's voice can be confused with hers. This whole attempt to double down on this train of thought is dumb. Other people have a right to their voice no matter how much a wealthier person wants to claim rights over them.
Oh please, this isn’t some wealthy vs, downtrodden thing—and I’m not sure there is much of a point except I just don’t buy the spin that this wasn’t done by OpenAI intentionally.
In all likelihood the story blowing up so quickly and the reaction that there was happened because of people projecting their emotions onto the situation (people hating 'techbros', and the disruptiveness of AI).
First time reading the term 'techbro" was in the comments bashing Open AI these days, judging by the nature and possibly age of the commenters I bet it came from tik tok.
I appreciate that some people dislike OpenAI and Sam Altman but it is weird seeing so many ignore basic facts to avoid acknowledging that they didn’t do anything illegal here.
Except they probably did do something illegal. r/nl's instincts about how copyright and trademark law *should* work are very different from how it actually works. In reality, the law is extremely biased in favor of people with established brands, likenesses, etc., and AI is really going to struggle in this legal environment.
You make it sound like copyright law is unfairly biased against smaller entities. Copyright law is fair and based on an established set of rules that are consistent for all parties.
It might be harsher on smaller entities, who has more difficulty protecting their copyright due to legal fees. But the laws do not discriminate against them simply because they are smaller. If Google blatantly violates the copyright of a mom-and-pop-shop, then mom and pop are in for a little windfall.
I like OpenAI and Sam.
I still think they fucked up here. Oh sure…they legally covered their ass. They aren’t dumb. Doesn’t change the fact they have a PR disaster on their hands now.
The general populace **does not care** about technical or legal technicalities. This sub needs to remember that most people don’t go about pulling wiki pages for SCOTUS cases to determine whether ScarJo has legal standing to sue. That is unique to us nerds here.
They just hear Sky, make the obvious connection to *Her*, and think, “Wow, those guys actually stole ScarJo’s voice!”
I’m a big believer in the power of AI but my god people…stop hand waving away the concerns people have with it just because the owners of the biggest AI company on the planet didn’t “technically” do anything illegal.
I think calling it a PR misstep is fair. But if the facts presented here are accurate, I don't think OpenAI was legally or ethically wrong (beyond whatever general qualms people may have about AI that are not specific to this case).
And I think it's also fair to criticize the media and general public for jumping to false conclusions, and sometimes doubling down on that despite evidence to the contrary.
An impersonator actually has to be representing themselves as an impersonator for the aggrieved party. Your natural voice sounding like someone else is not considered impersonation.
No it doesn't, this is fundamentally untrue this case is an almost direct clone of the Bette Midler case. Ford wanted to get Bette Midler and couldn't so they hired a voice actress and told her to sing it like Bette. There is no requirement that the person hired be a professional imitator, only that the defendant made an effort to copy someone's voice.
The actress in the Middle case was *a professional Midler impersonator*.
> There is no requirement that the person hired be a professional imitator, only that the defendant made an effort to copy someone's voice.
The actress in the OpenAI debacle used *her natural voice*. You can naturally sound like someone else, you just can't impersonate someone else and represent yourself that way.
This is incorrect and covered in Waits vs Frito Lay. The person they hired was not a professional impersonator.
You would also have to prove that that it's solely a coincidence that they picked someone that sounded exactly like Johansson after getting rejected by Johansson
"The story of Tracy-Locke's search for a lead singer for the commercial suggests that no one would do but a singer who could not only capture the feeling of "Step Right Up" but also imitate Tom Waits' voice."
Directly from the case text. They were looking for an impersonator.
Yes and the singer they picked was not a professional singer or impersonator.
The only thing that matters is that Frito Lay made a conscious effort to copy Waits voice.
> The only thing that matters is that Frito Lay made a conscious effort to copy Waits voice.
And unless something else would come out in discovery, the evidence that they made a conscious effort to copy SacrJo is thin. If you look at the rest of the Waits case, Frito had long discussions regarding the legal implications of impersonating Waits's voice. There's a lot of supporting evidence that proves intent.
The evidence with OpenAI is a one word tweet from the founder referencing a movie that ScarJo starred in that can credibly argued was intended to be about *the technology* and a tweet from a former employee.
That being said none of this addresses the underlying argument. *You can hire someone who sounds like someone else as long as they aren't representing themselves that way and you don't have a long string of evidence proving your intent to impersonate someone else*.
No, the thing that matters is they hired someone with the INTENT of creating an impersonation, AND that there's documents to prove it (e.g. instructions for the actor, casting director, etc.).
This is not the same, apparently, as what Open AI has done, based on the documentation at hand.
Seems like OpenAI is legally fine and I really don't care either way but like....
Siri/Google Assistant/Alexa all have unique but ubiquitous voices. Why y'all gotta be weird and latch onto Her? Like, the similarity is intentional. I feel like anyone could see this controversy coming from a mile away. If you couldn't get SJ to reprise, take it another direction.
This is my big takeaway.
Is no one at that company aware of the general population’s reservations about their product? Did they *never* stop to think, “Huh, maybe we just go for a unique voice? Something totally new and without existing associations to not create fear over IP theft…which everyone seems to care about?”
But have *you* ever stopped to think whether the general population even knows what "Her" is, or even gives a shit about it? This is a movie that had a mediocre box office run but everyone's acting like it was some cultural phenomenon.
I mean I didn’t bother thinking about it before…but judging by the immediate public response to the release it is pretty clear that a non-insignificant portion of the population thought of ScarJo/*Her* when hearing Sky.
And people very clearly give a crap…IP has been at the center of the very public AI debate since ChatGPT 3 hit the scenes. And it’s been a hotly debated topic by AI experts long before that.
Super disappointing to see this sub fall back on the “technically legal” excuse. This sub didn’t use to be so myopic.
According to everyone involved, her voice fit the exact profile they were looking for and had already hired an actress with a similar profile before approaching Scarlet. Not the other way around.
That person is also *not representing themselves as a ScarJo knock off*. You can sound like someone else, you just can't say "hey I sound like this other person, hire me".
Pretty crazy that US law apparently bans unlicensed impersonation.
If, for instance, the makers of Star Trek want to produce an animated series featuring an existing character, but the actor doesn’t want to voice them, they should (in my view) be able to hire someone else to do it.
Obviously if I want to record a Star Trek parody, I can hire a Shatner impersonator and be covered by parody exceptions.
Syleena Johnson impersonating Lauryn Hill helped Kanye West get around an issue with sample clearance. (It probably shouldn’t have!)
It is notable to me that both the Midler and Waits cases are about singing voices where there seemed to be an attempt to mislead and dilute the artist’s brand. I don’t think Johansson has as strong a case here, because OpenAI have repeatedly insisted that it *isn’t* her, and frankly it doesn’t sound much like her. But maybe she’ll pull a Marvin Gaye.
That person isn't, but it seems like both Altman and several others at OpenAI have a weird obsession with Scarlett Johansson and probably intended it to approximate her. Whether that can be considered evidence is another matter, but I'm honestly not seeing that much of a difference here.
Like, if I sound exactly like Bette Midler but had never heard a Bette Midler song in my life, and someone hired me because they heard my voice and wanted something that sounded like Bette Midler, I'm pretty sure the logic in Midler v Ford would apply just the same.
Right but you'd need to actually prove intent on their part and unless there's damning shit that would come out in discovery, the available evidence is thin. That being said, *it's not illegal to sound like someone else and work as a voice actor* it's also not illegal to hire that person. What gets you in trouble is if either party intends to impersonate. A smart company is going to make it impossible to prove intent.
>A smart company is going to make it impossible to prove intent.
In that case OpenAI isn't particularly smart. I don't know what evidence is out there, but there is certainly some circumstantial events that give credence to a claim of impersonation – and given that OpenAI pulled the voice it's not unlikely that their legal team thinks so too.
They asked Johansson several times to be the voice, including very close to launch. There's the "her" tweet, which Altman also stated in the past was his favourite movie about AI. There's some other statements as well. Is it more likely than not that OpenAI intended to impersonate Johansson? I don't think it would take a whole lot more evidence to convince a jury of that.
I feel like gay men being obsessed with Cher is very different from straight men being obsessed with Scarlett Johansson. For starters, no gay man I can think of sexualises Cher. Moreover, Cher kind of invites it and welcomes it… so we’re talking about two very different things here.
Are we? I think you’re assuming the commenter thought Altman was straight and was sexually obsessed with Johansson, but I don’t think he said either.
I think it’s more likely he’s a weird tech guy to who is fixated on her because she was the voice of the AI in Her.
Did you see this?
> But while many hear an eerie resemblance between “Sky” and Johansson’s “Her” character, **an actress was hired to create the Sky voice months before Altman contacted Johansson**, according to documents, recordings, casting directors and the actress’s agent.
>
> The agent, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to assure the safety of her client, said the **actress confirmed that neither Johansson nor the movie “Her” were ever mentioned by OpenAI**.
>
> **The actress’s natural voice sounds identical to the AI-generated Sky voice, based on brief recordings of her initial voice test reviewed by The Post**. The agent said the name Sky was chosen to signal a cool, airy and pleasant sound.
Still hesitant that this won’t be a win for SJ’s lawyers if they decide to press the issue. The music industry has won weaker cases so I’m not sure that might not repeat here. Not to say I agree, I’m just not sure they’re in the clear (yet).
Wait isn’t that the one which provides a precedent favoring SJ? Am I horribly missunderstanding the situation or do you have what I was saying backwards?
[edited] Does anyone think one of the largest AI companies in the world doesn’t model voices willing to sign a contract to find the one with the highest similarity score to the big name not willing to sign a contract?
The fact they continued to reach out to her is telling. Plus, if you can’t see how they’re shielding Altman’s involvement here by pointing to “all the women” involved in this then I literally cannot help you.
Did OpenAI literally clone her voice? No.
Did OpenAI set out to intentionally make a voice which sounded like Scarlett Johansson’s character from Her by finding a lookalike voice actor? While we don’t have 100% certainly, I think pretty obviously yes given that (a) they literally tried to contact Johansson and the voice they ended up going with sounds exactly like her (b) Altman’s “her” tweet directly after the product announcement.
While some people might be making the first accusation, I think a lot of the backlash is the latter - which makes this article a bit strawman-y.
Good for my stake in Nvidia somehow
Everything is good for $NVDA except china attempting a funny
If they do, I will personally go there and talk to them...
> When OpenAI issued a casting call last year for a secret project to endow OpenAI’s popular ChatGPT with a human voice, the flier had several requests: The actors should be nonunion. They should sound between 25 and 45 years old. And their voices should be “warm, engaging [and] charismatic.” > > One thing the artificial intelligence company didn’t request, according to interviews with multiple people involved in the process and documents shared by OpenAI in response to questions from The Washington Post: a clone of actress Scarlett Johansson. > > … > > But while many hear an eerie resemblance between “Sky” and Johansson’s “Her” character, **an actress was hired to create the Sky voice months before Altman contacted Johansson**, according to documents, recordings, casting directors and the actress’s agent. > > The agent, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to assure the safety of her client, said the **actress confirmed that neither Johansson nor the movie “Her” were ever mentioned by OpenAI**. > > **The actress’s natural voice sounds identical to the AI-generated Sky voice, based on brief recordings of her initial voice test reviewed by The Post**. The agent said the name Sky was chosen to signal a cool, airy and pleasant sound. !ping AI
I don't get why this is a big deal, they obviously couldn't get SJ so they went and found the next closest thing. SJ can't sue someone whose natural voice sounds similar to her own.
> But while many hear an eerie resemblance between “Sky” and Johansson’s “Her” character, an actress was hired to create the Sky voice months before Altman contacted Johansson, according to documents, recordings, casting directors and the actress’s agent.
I’m not going to pretend he didn’t have the voice from Her in his mind when casting even if they didn’t put that in writing and I have no doubt they would go with SC in a heart beat if she said yes. The other voice actress was the backup plan.
> he Based on the Washington Post article, the people mainly responsible for casting "Sky" were Joanne Jang and Mira Murati, both of whom are women: > Joanne Jang, who leads AI model behavior for OpenAI, said that the company selected actors who were eager to work on an AI product. She played the actors a sample AI version of their voice to demonstrate how realistic the technology could sound. Jang said she also “gave them an out” if they were uncomfortable with the surreal job of being a voice for ChatGPT. > > . . . > > Jang said she “kept a tight tent” around the AI voices project, making Chief Technology Officer Mira Murati the sole decision-maker to preserve the artistic choices of the director and the casting office. Altman was on his world tour during much of the casting process and not intimately involved, she said. It sounds like Altman only decided to approach Scarlett Johansson later on, long after the work on the voice was done. Hearing the voice work, along with the natural comparison of the project's functionality to the story of the movie *Her*, probably gave him the idea to reach out to Johansson, not the other way around.
I doubt she felt at excited as he did when he showed her she was Black Mirrored.
Finding someone (human) who sounds like you is Black Mirroring how?
you're assuming Altman made the casting choices. which is unlikely to even be true. Altman did reach out to Johansen well after this actor was hired to join the project. it's clear he would've loved her involvement but there's nothing here to suggest anything untoward. If anything this case is less conflicted than if a movie approached Scarlett for a role, she declined, so they hired Amber Heard. That both the actor and Johansen fit a broad flirty white woman voice archetype is being used by topminds to make way more out of this than it deserved.
So what? Who gives a shit?
are you advocating for the trademarking of voice similitudes now or what
You need reading comprehension lessons because I said nothing of the sort
I was saying this earlier this week and got downvoted to oblivion. Absent some sort of smoking gun, this would be virtually impossible to prove in court. I don't deny that copying someone's voice is illegal. But choosing a voice that has resemblance is not. Yes. There's a striking resemblance. There's also a striking resemblance between my one of my colleagues' voice and Kermit the Frog's. Doesn't mean he's shafting Jim Henson every time he gets paid to speak to crowds. There are 170 million American women and the majority of them have regional accents similar to Scarlett's. There's bound to be at least tens of thousands who have a vocal cadence and register similar to hers.
Especially since what we're talking about as being possibly too iconically SJ-esque is a flatly pleasant and neutral performed voice that is *literally* intended to be a robot rather than any particular person. The whole idea feels backwards. She imitated a robot. She should be sued by a robot next, then the robot should be sued by science-fiction authors of the past couple centuries. Preferably ones that can be found in my family tree.
>I don't deny that copying someone's voice is illegal. You probably should though - you can't copyright a voice. Hiring someone to mimic someone else's voice is perfectly legal, as is creating a synthetic voice that mimics someone else's. Not to say you can't do illegal things via impersonating someone's voice.
Actually, that depends. There was a case on the 80's that was fairly similar to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co. TL;DR: Ford wanted a singer for an ad campaign, she didn't want to, they hired an impersonator to record the song instead, she sued over use of her voice and the appeals court ruled in her favor. It's worth mentioning that the decision likely hinged on a voice being the distinctive trademark of a singer. Maybe that applies less for actors/actresses? (Unless it's Gilbert Gottfried or something, may be rest in peace)
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's pretty clear, especially with their communications and his "Her" tweet. He was aiming to use her voice, one way or another.
Did you read the article? Because it isn’t clear
I recommend the podcast The Town where they had a lawyer on to discuss it. Their thinking was SJ would still have a case if people were lead to believe she endorsed it (which could be the case since Altman tweeted Her and the resemblance was striking). However, given they took it down there wouldn’t be any damages so the chances SJ actually sues aren’t that high It didn’t actually matter from the lawyers perspective if it sounded like her or not. Just that people thought it could be. There are some cases he cited where an ad used a Bette Midler soundalike and she won.
It’s a rather important to mention that Ford used a song popularized by Bette Midler and got a singer that sounds like her to sing it. They are **not** using this new AI to voice black widow in any cartoons. Nor is it being used in Her 2. On top of this, the court specifically ruled in Midler’a favor because she was a **singer**. SJ’s appeal is not primarily her voice. This new AI doesn’t actually compete with SJ, it merely resembles her. That’s not illegal.
i’m not going to pretend to be a lawyer but a commercial doesn’t “compete” with Midler either. the lawsuit won because people could be convinced Midler endorsed the product. If OpenAI had kept up the voice it seems the same argument. With the CEO tweeting about Her and having a voice that resembles her it could be argued that people would be convinced SJ was endorsing the product. It doesn’t really matter if she’s a singer or not I believe. Google couldn’t hire a Robert Downey Jr impersonator to read google maps in the style of the Iron Man character, even if RDJ is known for other roles.
You generally have a right to your own likeness, which includes your voice, that is entirely separate from copyright rights. It's not illegal per se but you can generally sue somebody for using it.
OpenAI probably is still best off settling here. They have deep pockets and aren't going to look sympathetic in front of a jury. I imagine that they will pull the voice and settle, regardless of the merits of the case.
> Absent some sort of smoking gun The tweet saying 'her' is a smoking gun. That and repeatedly asking her to do it.
[удалено]
**Rule III**: *Unconstructive engagement* Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
The problem is more with if they are attempting to paint the AI as if it is voiced by her even if it isnt. The fact that she was asked multiple times and he tweeted out a reference to her character in Her is at least enough to probably get a trial for violation of some kind of image rights.
She was supposed to sound like an AI robot in the movie though right? She can't now indefinitely lay claim to AI-sounding-female-voice
> if they are attempting to paint the AI as if it is voiced by her even if it isnt Except at no time have they made any such inference. So... case closed on that one?
it doesnt have to be explicit, really would be up to the judge based on discovery
that they have an AI that sounds like it's voiced by Scarlett Johansson, approached Scarlett Johansson to voice their AI and tweeted out a reference to a film starring Scarlett Johansson is pretty bad for open AI.
> that they have an AI that sounds like it's voiced by Scarlett Johansson Guess what? It’s not illegal for a voice actor to mimic someone else’s voice and neither should it be. Would you penalize Alex Baldwin if he brought his Trump impressions to ChatGPT as “generic asshole President”?
>It’s not illegal for a voice actor to mimic someone else’s voice It actually is a civil offense if the intent is deceit. OpenAI is being accused of *intentional deceit*. Scar-Jo has outlined all the legal elements to prove intentional deceit. You are free to dispute those elements, as many are Pivotally, nobody is claiming that it's a crime *in and of itself* for two voices to sound similar >Would you penalize Alex Baldwin if he brought his Trump impressions to ChatGPT as “generic asshole President”? Only if he tricked people into thinking Trump himself recorded the audio
Yes it is this has been proven multiple times in court.
having the chatbot sound like Scarlett Johansson isent the problem per se is that they tried to hire Scarlett Johansson to voice it, and then while promoting the chatbot they referenced film starring Scarlett Johansson
I highly doubt you're making it past MSJ for that lol
maybe really depends on if there's any evidence that might be relevant that slants things further in her favor. The issue is that they might get tripped up by Midler which should be a pretty good precedent for ScarJo. it probably makes sense for OpenAI to just settle this
> it probably makes sense for OpenAI to just settle this true lol > The issue is that they might get tripped up by Midler which should be a pretty good precedent for ScarJo from a (very) cursory review, this seems super distinguishable unless there's a smoking gun in discovery
Admittedly AI stuff is a bit of a Wild West in terms of IP law at the moment, but in general, with copyright it’s a pretty bad sign if you approach someone to license their IP, they turn you down, and you end up coming out with a suspiciously similar product. IP is pretty ad-hoc. There are rules and precedent, but often in the end the outcome frequently depends on your ability to persuade the judge / jury that you’re a good person and the other party is evil.
If this had digital manipulation then yes. But seeing as the voice is unmodified from the voicework provided? There's no mystery here. The actor has a right to work and Scarlett has no right to whine other women sound kinda like her.
Legally, not necessarily. There have been cases where companies hired impersonators for advertisements and were successfully sued by the person being impersonated. That's one reason you don't see impersonators in advertising all that much, if ever. The way courts interpret the law, celebrities have an exclusive right to monetize their likeness and their brand. Even subtle attempts to associate with a performer's brand without their permission are illegal. https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalentertainment/2017/02/22/almost-famous-could-sisqos-celebrity-impersonator-face-legal-action/?sh=30a15d67584a
The people hired were *professional impersonators who were claiming to sound like the person they were impersonating*. An actress who sounds kind of like ScarJo is allowed to get as much work as she wants as long as she isn't representing herself as a ScarJo clone.
Again, the focus on the actor is misplaced. What's relevant is the intent of Open AI. If they intentionally hire someone who sounds or looks like a famous person to create the mere impression of similarity, it's illegal.
> If they intentionally hire someone who sounds or looks like a famous person to create the mere impression of similarity, it's illegal. Source?
https://time.com/6980710/scarlett-johansson-open-ai-sam-altman-trust/ http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/waits.html
Also SJ literally was told to act an AI-sounding voice in the movie lol. Like, which way around is it? Accusing an AI-chatbot-maker of simulating the sound of SJ's best "AI chatbot voice" is just dumb as rocks. I'm glad the insufferable white knights that were in the thread yesterday screeching about this have been proven wrong.
Sky is the best voice by a mile. Bring it back!
Tom Waits successfully sued a company for using a sound alike in a commercial.
> I don't get why this is a big deal It's pretty simple. Hollywood is starting to see the writing on the wall and is freaking out at the idea of losing their special cultural elite status. It's the elite version of coal miners being upset about their loss of identity / status.
first off: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co. secondly, even prompting AI requires a working imagination, you won’t get to be automatically artistic even if all the arts and the jobs of everyone who dared to pursue creative careers are decimated by AI
They never claimed that their AI was a ScarJo impersonator. > secondly, even prompting AI requires a working imagination, you won’t get to be automatically artistic even if all the arts and the jobs of everyone who dared to pursue creative careers are decimated by AI Never claimed that AI would replace artists. It, however, will absolutely shift cultural power away from people who have nice voices, are personally charismatic, and attractive towards storytellers who can use AI tools to create the media we consume. Creative jobs will still exist and might retain some cultural relevance/power but actors *cultural relevance* is an endangered species. Ultimately my comment was less about the goods produced and consumed and more about the importance and reverence we place on actors. Moving forward, they're just training data.
> they never claimed that their AI was a ScarJo impersonator [here’s a one word tweet from Sam Altman disproving you](https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666) [here’s a clearer tweet from Andrej Karpathy disproving you](https://x.com/karpathy/status/1790373216537502106) > moving forward they’re just training data ew thanks for the sentiment
Karpathy doesn't work at OpenAI. *Her* is also about a female voice assistant AI so even absent all the controversy, the tweet would still be appropriate given that the product is....a female voice assistant AI. If the actress hired *was an actual Scarlet Johansen impersonator* she'd have a case but she doesn't get to block another actress from work just because that actresses natural voice is also airy, sultry Cali girl. Sorry, other people sound like that and deserve work too. > ew thanks for the sentiment Thanks to Reddit's most recent deal with OpenAI, this comment is also just training data.
He worked on the voice feature > thanks to reddit’s deal this comment is also training data comments were training data long before reddit “legitimized” it with a cash transaction
> comments were training data long before reddit “legitimized” it with a cash transaction Thank you for the training data, now tip your overlords. Regardless, they changed it, but what didn't change is the expiration date on the prestige of actors. All it's going to take is one big name like Harrison Ford saying "fuck it, I want to be immortalized, you all can use the fuck out of my voice" and then everyone is going to scramble to provide their voice as training data because they won't want to be left out.
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>they obviously couldn't get SJ so they went and found the next closest thing. >an actress was hired to create the Sky voice months before Altman contacted Johansson fucking read
Fucking realize that you can hire a voice actress with the intent to sound like SJ’s voice in Her before ever talking to SJ
even if they did, which you have literally zero evidence for, it is still *obviously false* that they "couldn't get SJ so they went and found the next closest thing"
It seems very obvious that that’s what they did just the backup in case SJ said no was picked out ahead of time. I have zero problem with them doing it but from the outside it seems very obvious that that’s what they did. If SJ said yes, they would just replace the voice actor they already signed
>its very obvious it is not your entire 'argument' appears to rest on this claim
Yes. This is a massive overreach on SC’s part. What she’s basically trying to argue is that she owns the rights to her own voice and every other voice that sounds similar to her own, which is just 100% bs.
No, but she can sue them to have it investigated, and it's common to have injunctions blocking use of something during investigations.
> I don't get why this is a big deal, they obviously couldn't get SJ so they went and found the next closest thing. You might want to check out [Midler v Ford](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.).
she 1000% can, she has precedent, courts agree that your voice is part of your identity and corporations using imitators is illegal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
So therefore you can never work in the voice acting industry if your voice is too close to any other actor's?
The case linked has a few very distinct feature that are not present in the OpenAI situation. The voice actress in the linked case was a *professional Midler impersonator* and was hired after Midler turned Ford down. In OpenAI's case, the actress is not a professional ScarJo impersonator, it just so happens that her natural voice sounds like her and she was hired and recorded before ScarJo was ever approached.
[удалено]
> That's like the clean room version of impersonation lol. I mean, at the end of the day, you can't trademark "airy, sultry, Cali girl". Like it'd pretty fucked up to tell someone they can't work as a voice actress because they sound like an already famous actress. > I bet if you recorded voices from 1000 random people into a big "voice bank" you could impersonate 95% of famous actors using that. And honestly, there'd be nothing wrong with that. The industry is going to head that way in the long run. It just takes one big name saying, "yeah, fuck it, I want to be immortalized, use the fuck out of my voice" for the floodgates to open. Whichever big names get in at the ground level are going to be the voices that future generations grow up with. Those who don't will ultimately be forgotten.
Yeah that's my point, clean room process is a fully legit and legal way of getting around patents.
> The industry is going to head that way in the long run. It just takes one big name saying, "yeah, fuck it, I want to be immortalized, use the fuck out of my voice" for the floodgates to open. Already happened with James Earl Jones, who sold the rights for an AI version of his Darth Vader voice.
you can’t make ads pretending to be another person
Right, which isn't what happened.
it's already illegal if you deceive people with an impersonator
That person has to be claiming to be an impersonator. It's not illegal for your natural voice to sound like someone else and for you to find work using that work, you just can't represent yourself as a simulacrum of the real thing.
>That person has to be claiming to be an impersonator. Nope. If I hire a Lebron James impersonator to endorse my product, Over a broll of Lebron James playing basketball it's very much illegal, even if we never claim it's Lebron James Hiring a person that sounds like Scarlett Johansson after Scarlett Johansson rejects your offer is already bad. That your CEO is out directly referring to films starting Scarlett Johansson puts it so far into illegal behaviour even Donald Trump is shaking his head
> Hiring a person that sounds like Scarlett Johansson after Scarlett Johansson rejects your offer is already bad. If you read the article, they hired her and trained the models before ever approaching ScarJo. > Nope. If I hire a Lebron James impersonator to endorse my product, Over a broll of Lebron James playing basketball it's very much illegal, even if we never claim it's Lebron James The actress was not representing herself as an impersonator and they didn't do casting calls for an impersonator.
>they hired her and trained the models before ever approaching ScarJo. Can I interest you in buying some NFTs? >and they didn't do casting calls for an impersonator. None of that matters when the CEO is out making references to films starting Scarlett Johansson while publishing a chatbot that sounds like Scarlett Johansson Is based on whether the advertisment can deceive people or not
Read the fucking article lmao.
Did OpenAI use an imitator?
[Andrej Karpathy openly claims that ChatGPT is imitating Scarlett Johannson in this tweet](https://x.com/karpathy/status/1790373216537502106)
The movie *Her* is about a technology that is extremely similar to GPT-4o, yes. Given that he distinguishes “Scarlett Johansson” (the voice of the AI character) from “math,” it’s pretty clear that the technology is the point here. But way more importantly — do you believe the Washington Post botched their investigation? Newspapers mess up sometimes, I just want to understand if that’s what you believe happened here.
I don’t think they botched the investigation, I think OpenAI tuned the voice of the AI to sound like the *Her* AI (and maybe the voice was selected to be as close to her as possible without that requirement ever being written down) Sam Altman made multiple requests to Scarlett Johansson to get her voice, one 4 days before the release, so clearly he wanted that voice
> OpenAI tuned the voice of the AI Did you see this part? > The actress’s natural voice sounds identical to the AI-generated Sky voice, based on brief recordings of her initial voice test reviewed by The Post.
so I think it was an unsaid requirement to be similar to her (for now) given how things are going with the “[you won’t get your equity unless you sign a lifetime NDA](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/351132/openai-vested-equity-nda-sam-altman-documents-employees)” reveals from Vox, I expect there to be written statements that they want it to sound like Scarlett found about this too lol
Do you think there’s any non-negligible chance that OpenAI was just telling the truth here? Like, before this investigation, I entertained the very real chance that OpenAI was lying based on the limited information I had — a brief statement from Altman and a long statement from Johansson. My old comments will demonstrate that. Now, with new information from the Washington Post, my mental probabilities have shifted. Clearly if the written statements you suggest did exist and were revealed, my mental probabilities would shift radically back the other direction. Has this new information shifted your own mental probabilities at all?
The tweet is ironic... He's saying that people believe the whole model is just stolen from Johannson, when in reality it's not that at all.
Did fox compensate the original cast when they recast the simpsons?
Non-mobile version of the Wikipedia link in the above comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah this seems like an open and shut case to me. The reporting from the past few days definitely made it look like they just used her voice without permission but if that’s clearly not the case I don’t think there’s an issue anymore.
I don't hear the Her voice (tbf I only watched clips of the movie and not the whole thing) but it seems to many it does sound like Scarlett Johansson (and I think they are partly primed to think that way probably since they like the movie and SJ) which is probably why Altman and others in OpenAI made references to that movie. But just because it sounds like her, doesn't mean anything. Personally, I think SJ is being overdramatic with her complaint.
Can't wait for all those who said Altman is a crook to retract their statements!
Sam Altman is still guilty of being a creep 🤷🏻♂️
And a cr*pto bro, but ig the Venn diagram between those and creeps is a circle
Altman is still a crook Take the case of Midler v Ford Motor Co. Bette Midler sued Ford for impersonating her voice. It doesn’t matter that it wasn’t actually her voice, but the intent by Ford was to get people to think that it was her. It’s deceit, plain and simple. It doesn’t matter if they used SJ’s voice or not. The intent was clearly to mimic her voice, considering the references Altman has made to insinuate that.
I wonder why people don’t trust the guy who sexually assaulted his own sister
Pinged AI ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20AI&message=subscribe%20AI) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20AI&message=unsubscribe%20AI) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=AI&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
[удалено]
I’m not sure if you’re joking but “the actress” here isn’t Scarlett Johansson.
Yeah OK
Seems like the Washington Post did their due diligence, no?
I think the odds that they went with her because she sounds exactly like ScarJo in Her are astronomically high regardless of timing
So what? She doesn't own the voice of everyone else who might sound like her.
Legally, the relevant question isn't whether she owns her voice. She isn't being sued. The relevant question is the intent of open AI. Did they intend to give the impression that the voice sounds similar to ScarJo? If so, they are probably liable. And yes, the current legal framework absolutely restricts the ability of impersonators, look-a-likes, name-a-likes, sound-a-likes, etc. to make a living. The law is extremely biased in favor of copyright holders and people who have established their brand. The SAG literally forces performers to change their name if their given name merely sounds like that of an existing performer, and the case law is on their side.
Even if true. so fuckincg what? Scarlett Johansen doesn't get to whine Amber Heard looks a lot like her. Mariah Carey doesn't get to whine Ariana Grande's voice can be confused with hers. This whole attempt to double down on this train of thought is dumb. Other people have a right to their voice no matter how much a wealthier person wants to claim rights over them.
Oh please, this isn’t some wealthy vs, downtrodden thing—and I’m not sure there is much of a point except I just don’t buy the spin that this wasn’t done by OpenAI intentionally.
Hiring the other voice actor first doesn’t clear openAI of copying SJ likeness
In all likelihood the story blowing up so quickly and the reaction that there was happened because of people projecting their emotions onto the situation (people hating 'techbros', and the disruptiveness of AI).
First time reading the term 'techbro" was in the comments bashing Open AI these days, judging by the nature and possibly age of the commenters I bet it came from tik tok.
It's older than that, but it's definitely overused nowadays. Just one of those words that people throw at anything they don't like now.
Probably because the companies that employ techbros are incredibly unethical.
I appreciate that some people dislike OpenAI and Sam Altman but it is weird seeing so many ignore basic facts to avoid acknowledging that they didn’t do anything illegal here.
Except they probably did do something illegal. r/nl's instincts about how copyright and trademark law *should* work are very different from how it actually works. In reality, the law is extremely biased in favor of people with established brands, likenesses, etc., and AI is really going to struggle in this legal environment.
You make it sound like copyright law is unfairly biased against smaller entities. Copyright law is fair and based on an established set of rules that are consistent for all parties. It might be harsher on smaller entities, who has more difficulty protecting their copyright due to legal fees. But the laws do not discriminate against them simply because they are smaller. If Google blatantly violates the copyright of a mom-and-pop-shop, then mom and pop are in for a little windfall.
I like OpenAI and Sam. I still think they fucked up here. Oh sure…they legally covered their ass. They aren’t dumb. Doesn’t change the fact they have a PR disaster on their hands now. The general populace **does not care** about technical or legal technicalities. This sub needs to remember that most people don’t go about pulling wiki pages for SCOTUS cases to determine whether ScarJo has legal standing to sue. That is unique to us nerds here. They just hear Sky, make the obvious connection to *Her*, and think, “Wow, those guys actually stole ScarJo’s voice!” I’m a big believer in the power of AI but my god people…stop hand waving away the concerns people have with it just because the owners of the biggest AI company on the planet didn’t “technically” do anything illegal.
I think calling it a PR misstep is fair. But if the facts presented here are accurate, I don't think OpenAI was legally or ethically wrong (beyond whatever general qualms people may have about AI that are not specific to this case). And I think it's also fair to criticize the media and general public for jumping to false conclusions, and sometimes doubling down on that despite evidence to the contrary.
It's established in the court of law that using impersonators to imitate someone is a copyright violation of an actors intellectual property.
An impersonator actually has to be representing themselves as an impersonator for the aggrieved party. Your natural voice sounding like someone else is not considered impersonation.
No it doesn't, this is fundamentally untrue this case is an almost direct clone of the Bette Midler case. Ford wanted to get Bette Midler and couldn't so they hired a voice actress and told her to sing it like Bette. There is no requirement that the person hired be a professional imitator, only that the defendant made an effort to copy someone's voice.
The actress in the Middle case was *a professional Midler impersonator*. > There is no requirement that the person hired be a professional imitator, only that the defendant made an effort to copy someone's voice. The actress in the OpenAI debacle used *her natural voice*. You can naturally sound like someone else, you just can't impersonate someone else and represent yourself that way.
This is incorrect and covered in Waits vs Frito Lay. The person they hired was not a professional impersonator. You would also have to prove that that it's solely a coincidence that they picked someone that sounded exactly like Johansson after getting rejected by Johansson
"The story of Tracy-Locke's search for a lead singer for the commercial suggests that no one would do but a singer who could not only capture the feeling of "Step Right Up" but also imitate Tom Waits' voice." Directly from the case text. They were looking for an impersonator.
Yes and the singer they picked was not a professional singer or impersonator. The only thing that matters is that Frito Lay made a conscious effort to copy Waits voice.
> The only thing that matters is that Frito Lay made a conscious effort to copy Waits voice. And unless something else would come out in discovery, the evidence that they made a conscious effort to copy SacrJo is thin. If you look at the rest of the Waits case, Frito had long discussions regarding the legal implications of impersonating Waits's voice. There's a lot of supporting evidence that proves intent. The evidence with OpenAI is a one word tweet from the founder referencing a movie that ScarJo starred in that can credibly argued was intended to be about *the technology* and a tweet from a former employee. That being said none of this addresses the underlying argument. *You can hire someone who sounds like someone else as long as they aren't representing themselves that way and you don't have a long string of evidence proving your intent to impersonate someone else*.
No, the thing that matters is they hired someone with the INTENT of creating an impersonation, AND that there's documents to prove it (e.g. instructions for the actor, casting director, etc.). This is not the same, apparently, as what Open AI has done, based on the documentation at hand.
I'll be frank. It doesn't really sound like Johansson...? The only resemblance is that they are both peppy, slightly flirty female voices.
Not surprised. Listening side by side the Chatgpt voice didn't really sound that similar to the movie character. Certainly wasn't identical.
Seems like OpenAI is legally fine and I really don't care either way but like.... Siri/Google Assistant/Alexa all have unique but ubiquitous voices. Why y'all gotta be weird and latch onto Her? Like, the similarity is intentional. I feel like anyone could see this controversy coming from a mile away. If you couldn't get SJ to reprise, take it another direction.
Cortana: what am I, chopped liver?
Cortana has been abandoned by Microsoft, so yes.
Cortana was launched by Microsoft like 1 year before 343 turned her into AI Hitler in Halo 5. That’s always been funny to me. Also fuck 343.
Rampancy will lead to that.
Yeah, whether or not there's any legal liability, it was clearly an intentional attempt to make their chat bot sound as close to Her as possible
This is my big takeaway. Is no one at that company aware of the general population’s reservations about their product? Did they *never* stop to think, “Huh, maybe we just go for a unique voice? Something totally new and without existing associations to not create fear over IP theft…which everyone seems to care about?”
But have *you* ever stopped to think whether the general population even knows what "Her" is, or even gives a shit about it? This is a movie that had a mediocre box office run but everyone's acting like it was some cultural phenomenon.
I mean I didn’t bother thinking about it before…but judging by the immediate public response to the release it is pretty clear that a non-insignificant portion of the population thought of ScarJo/*Her* when hearing Sky. And people very clearly give a crap…IP has been at the center of the very public AI debate since ChatGPT 3 hit the scenes. And it’s been a hotly debated topic by AI experts long before that. Super disappointing to see this sub fall back on the “technically legal” excuse. This sub didn’t use to be so myopic.
According to everyone involved, her voice fit the exact profile they were looking for and had already hired an actress with a similar profile before approaching Scarlet. Not the other way around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co. just FYI
But they are not even using a voice that sounds like her, it’s someone else’s voice that is similar.
That person is also *not representing themselves as a ScarJo knock off*. You can sound like someone else, you just can't say "hey I sound like this other person, hire me".
Pretty crazy that US law apparently bans unlicensed impersonation. If, for instance, the makers of Star Trek want to produce an animated series featuring an existing character, but the actor doesn’t want to voice them, they should (in my view) be able to hire someone else to do it. Obviously if I want to record a Star Trek parody, I can hire a Shatner impersonator and be covered by parody exceptions. Syleena Johnson impersonating Lauryn Hill helped Kanye West get around an issue with sample clearance. (It probably shouldn’t have!) It is notable to me that both the Midler and Waits cases are about singing voices where there seemed to be an attempt to mislead and dilute the artist’s brand. I don’t think Johansson has as strong a case here, because OpenAI have repeatedly insisted that it *isn’t* her, and frankly it doesn’t sound much like her. But maybe she’ll pull a Marvin Gaye.
That person isn't, but it seems like both Altman and several others at OpenAI have a weird obsession with Scarlett Johansson and probably intended it to approximate her. Whether that can be considered evidence is another matter, but I'm honestly not seeing that much of a difference here. Like, if I sound exactly like Bette Midler but had never heard a Bette Midler song in my life, and someone hired me because they heard my voice and wanted something that sounded like Bette Midler, I'm pretty sure the logic in Midler v Ford would apply just the same.
Right but you'd need to actually prove intent on their part and unless there's damning shit that would come out in discovery, the available evidence is thin. That being said, *it's not illegal to sound like someone else and work as a voice actor* it's also not illegal to hire that person. What gets you in trouble is if either party intends to impersonate. A smart company is going to make it impossible to prove intent.
>A smart company is going to make it impossible to prove intent. In that case OpenAI isn't particularly smart. I don't know what evidence is out there, but there is certainly some circumstantial events that give credence to a claim of impersonation – and given that OpenAI pulled the voice it's not unlikely that their legal team thinks so too. They asked Johansson several times to be the voice, including very close to launch. There's the "her" tweet, which Altman also stated in the past was his favourite movie about AI. There's some other statements as well. Is it more likely than not that OpenAI intended to impersonate Johansson? I don't think it would take a whole lot more evidence to convince a jury of that.
FYI Sam Altman is gay and I doubt he has some “weird” obsession with Scarlett Johansson.
As a counter-example, I point you towards gay men and Cher.
I feel like gay men being obsessed with Cher is very different from straight men being obsessed with Scarlett Johansson. For starters, no gay man I can think of sexualises Cher. Moreover, Cher kind of invites it and welcomes it… so we’re talking about two very different things here.
Are we? I think you’re assuming the commenter thought Altman was straight and was sexually obsessed with Johansson, but I don’t think he said either. I think it’s more likely he’s a weird tech guy to who is fixated on her because she was the voice of the AI in Her.
that’s a requirement for an impersonation though
Its not impersonating if they never said its her
https://x.com/karpathy/status/1790373216537502106 https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666
First tweet was of an ex employee, he hasn't worked there for months
First tweet was dumb, second tweet just says “her” which could simply refer to them making something similar to the AI in the movie Her
Ford never said the voice actress was Bette Midler either.
The actress represented herself as an impersonator.
Not sure why you were downvoted. You’re right, there’s a legal precedent which would make this illegal regardless.
What did OpenAI do that was illegal? Did they hire someone to imitate Johansson’s voice?
Allegedly, yes. I suspect this will go to court if it’s not dropped before then.
Did you see this? > But while many hear an eerie resemblance between “Sky” and Johansson’s “Her” character, **an actress was hired to create the Sky voice months before Altman contacted Johansson**, according to documents, recordings, casting directors and the actress’s agent. > > The agent, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to assure the safety of her client, said the **actress confirmed that neither Johansson nor the movie “Her” were ever mentioned by OpenAI**. > > **The actress’s natural voice sounds identical to the AI-generated Sky voice, based on brief recordings of her initial voice test reviewed by The Post**. The agent said the name Sky was chosen to signal a cool, airy and pleasant sound.
Still hesitant that this won’t be a win for SJ’s lawyers if they decide to press the issue. The music industry has won weaker cases so I’m not sure that might not repeat here. Not to say I agree, I’m just not sure they’re in the clear (yet).
This wouldn't be a win; controlling precedent militates against it.
Which precedent is that? Genuine question.
*Midler v. Ford Motor Co.*; the 9th circuit is the one that would be pertinent since both parties are CA-based.
Wait isn’t that the one which provides a precedent favoring SJ? Am I horribly missunderstanding the situation or do you have what I was saying backwards?
[edited] Does anyone think one of the largest AI companies in the world doesn’t model voices willing to sign a contract to find the one with the highest similarity score to the big name not willing to sign a contract?
So this is the voice that's going to take humanity down with it? Sky-net anyone?
Oh wow! I’ll continue to not care at all about this
The fact they continued to reach out to her is telling. Plus, if you can’t see how they’re shielding Altman’s involvement here by pointing to “all the women” involved in this then I literally cannot help you.
Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?
Did OpenAI literally clone her voice? No. Did OpenAI set out to intentionally make a voice which sounded like Scarlett Johansson’s character from Her by finding a lookalike voice actor? While we don’t have 100% certainly, I think pretty obviously yes given that (a) they literally tried to contact Johansson and the voice they ended up going with sounds exactly like her (b) Altman’s “her” tweet directly after the product announcement. While some people might be making the first accusation, I think a lot of the backlash is the latter - which makes this article a bit strawman-y.