At first, they denied it—“OpenAI chief technology officer Mira Murati said the company did not pattern any ChatGPT voices on Johansson’s sultry computer voice in the movie,” but Altman and other OpenAI guys had let the cat out the bag on Twitter
They’re not just deliberately using her voice; they’re deliberately lying about it and bragging about what really happened in public. They’ll pay some nuisance settlement that’s a small fraction of their profit.
That’s how they treat an a list actress. Imagine how they treat everyone else. You don’t get a settlement. You just get fucked.
No, you don’t understand, these guys are tech bros, they’re special, for reasons.
From the article:
they don’t just think they’re the smartest people in the world, they think that everyone else is stupid.
And that sums up techbros in one sentence.
You see this in action anytime people go “no no you just don’t understand how this works” as a way of sidestepping the overall issue. They try to bury you in the minutiae of it, and what’s “technically” possible without acknowledging that A) what’s possible will increase over time and B) the issue is not technology, it’s the intention of it and the motivations of the people behind it.
It’s like trying to deconstruct the concept of a gun, talking about all its potential mechanical malfunctions, its capacity limits, the fact you have to aim it, and so on, all as a way of trying to downplay the danger of it being pointed directly at you.
According to her statement, they were still trying to strike a deal with her within days of the release.
I can’t imagine anything more shady than trying to strike a deal with someone for their likeness, all the while preparing to use it anyway and later denying it had anything to do with them
She is going to take them to the cleaners, and Altman and his circlejerk club will deserve every single cent of the damages they’re forced to pay. I genuinely hope she makes it an incredibly messy and eye wateringly expensive legal process for them. I’m not a ScarJo fanboy by any means, but fuck OpenAI for thinking they can get away with something so absurdly blatant and obviously unethical.
Gods, I hope you’re right. I hope it’s so bad that it scares every other AI company. Because they get away with this kind of crap all the time with no repercussions, since your average person doesn’t have the money to bring them to court over it.
They “let the cat out of the bag” by referencing the movie “Her” if I understand correctly. Not really an admition of guilt like the article makes it seem.
They also clearly state on their website that they used an other voice actor. If you actually compare both voices, they aren’t the same just similar. They probably went with someone that sounds like her on purpose specifically because of the movie but that’s fine really.
This article is emotional and manipulative. I don’t think scar jo deserves to own the whole spectrum her voice belongs to just because she voiced an AI in one movie. This is how you end up with corporations owning all voices like they tried with music.
I wouldn’t ever want someone to be able to own a tone/sound of voice. I’m with you there.
But it kinda sounds like they’re trying to straight-up imitate her. Like they want people to hear this ai and think it’s voiced by johanssen herself.
I don’t know if that’s true, or if it even makes a difference legally, it’s just the impression I’m getting.
I’m not knowledgeable about any of this; any correction is welcome, lol.
In Scarlett Johansson‘s statement, she says that OpenAI approached her to voice the Sky voice.
Whether or not OpenAI hired another actress that sounded very similar to her (hah.) and they are weirdly cagey about naming or they just ripped off the audio from her movies and are lying about hiring a voice actress, is not the extent of the issue.
People sounding alike just happens. But that we know they asked to use Johansson’s voice for this. After being rebuffed, they created Sky, which sounds a lot like Sam, and made several references to the Her movie. Sky is even presented with the same ‘personality’ as Sam. They aren’t just ripping off Scarlett Johansson’s voice acting, they’re ripping off the character as a whole, and trying to associate themselves with the movie. That’s shameful and rips off Spike Jonze as well as all the other creatives who created that movie.
And for what? Because tech bros didn’t get what they wanted, so they decided to try to rip off the characters anyway? Because Her is sort of a cultural touchstone, and their product is merely well-positioned, but GPT-4o will be in a crowded market space within 6 months?
It’s sort of pathetic - pretending to lean on the relevance of a movie because your product is destined to become irrelevant.
Also - highly ironic to me that Her is (somewhat) about how you can’t own something that doesn’t consent to be owned. And those dumb bitches went and ripped it off when they didn’t get consent. Well, now Sky’s gone to join Sam in some non-corporeal reality.
Sorry for the novel. I didn’t sleep well and I get weird when I’m sleep deprived.
Just like scarlet doesn’t own all voices that sound mildly like her, Spike Jonze doesn’t own the concept of an AI companion.
I’m not really sure what your point is, there’s nothing to rip off. No matter what they make it sound like, there’s going to be similarities with the movie. There’s nothing wrong with leaning into these for advertising purposes.
There’s also this part:
But Johansson’s public statement describes how they tried to shmooze her: they approached her last fall and were given the FO, contacted her agent two days before launch to ask for reconsideration, launched it before they got a response, then yanked it when her lawyers asked them how they made the voice.
Which is still not an admission of guilt, but seems very shady at the very least, if it’s actually what happened.
Not really an admition of guilt like the article makes it seem.
You don’t need an admission of guilt to lose in court. The fact that they pursued her permission up until 2 days before the release, even after being assured the client did not wish for them to utilize her voice, is pretty damning.
I don’t think scar jo deserves to own the whole spectrum her voice belongs to just because she voiced an AI in one movie.
What’s the difference between this and an AI releasing a Taylor Swift album? Does Taylor Swift deserve to own a whole spectrum of voice?
Voice acting is still an art, and artists deserve to be paid for their contributions. If she has performed an awfully in Her, would they still want to mimic her voice? If Her hadn’t been made, would they have come up with the voice and personality out of the blue?
No, because it’s art, and AI is just an advanced copying machine. Open AI is just the newest attempt to leverage artists and workers from their group bargaining power. It’s the scab of the future, but with more carbon emissions.
You don’t need an admission of guilt to lose in court.
Currently even if they used voice clips to train a model on her voice it wouldn’t be illegal. That isn’t currently the case, since they say they used an other actress that sounds like her anyways.
Does Taylor Swift deserve to own a whole spectrum of voice?
No, just like she doesn’t deserve to own the four chord progressions that make up her songs. If she did, she could literally sue half of all pop music.
This is why none of this is copyrightable. There are too many people that have similar voices and too many songs that use similar chord progressions.
Your fantasy where this empowers small time artists is just that, a fantasy. If we push and they come out with new laws that make these things copyrightable, you just end up with corporations owning all of it.
If you read another article that has more information to it, instead of just this opinion piece, it looks like they hired and paid a voice actress and that it is her natural voice (supposedly).
Which begs the question: Can a voice actor be denied work or denied the ability to have their voice used, if they sound similar to someone else who is more famous?
This kind of reminds me of Crispin Glover, from Back to the Future. He tried to negotiate a higher pay for the second movie, so the producers hired a different actor to play the role, but deliberately made the actor up to look like Glover. In response, Glover sued the producers and won. It set a critical precedent for Hollywood, about using someone’s likeness without consent.
The article mentions they reached out to her two days before the launch - if she had said ‘OK,’ there’s no way they could have even recorded what they needed from her, let alone trained the model in time for the presentation. So they must have had a Scarlett Johansson voice ready to go. Other than training the model on movies (really not ideal for a high quality voice model), how would they have gotten the recordings they needed?
If they hired a “random” voice actress, they might not run into issues. But if at any point they had a job listing, a discussion with a talent manager, or anything else where they mentioned wanting a “Scarlett Johansson sound-alike,” they might have dug themselves a nice hole here.
Specifically regarding your question about hiring a voice actor that sounds like someone else - this is commonly done to replace people for cartoons. I don’t think it’s an issue if you are playing a character. But if you deliberately impersonate a person, there might be some trouble.
Honestly, with the tweets that reference the Her movie, they may already be in a hole, anyway. Plus, it’s not just the voice, it’s that the ‘character’ of the Sky voice is very similar to Sam in the Her movie.
If I were a jurist, I could easily be persuaded to believe they willingly committed IP theft and attempted to imply endorsement of the Her movie (the production studio?), Spike Jonze, and Scarlett Johansson.
(Of course, that statement would disqualify me as a jurist, so I’ll never know!)
Well one of the other articles I’ve read said they listened to and sampled 400 voice actors and selected 5 of them to have flown out to do all the voice work. The voice in the product also doesn’t sound that much like Scar Jo. Just similar. She never had a very unique voice.
Intent probably matters a lot here. The actor they hired did not coincidentally have a similar voice. They were hired because they had a similar voice, and the fact that Scarlett Johansson was approached to start with only underscores this.
They were specifically looking for her likeness, for commercial reasons. And when it was denied, they purposely imitated it. That doesn’t feel right to me. In the end, they’re still trying to use her likeness without permission.
That’s different than if they liked a VA’s voice and hired them. The voice could be similar, but there was no ill intent nor attempting to copy a likeness. I think they would’ve been fine if they were even shooting for something like her voice. Where OpenAI fucked up is approaching Johansson to start with, because it shows they didn’t want something like her voice or the VA coincidentally sounded similar – they purposely wanted her likeness, and went behind her back to do it once she denied them.
These are the same dudes who have LSD and mushroom parties with their female coworkers and then pressure them into sex.
Orgies and psychedelics use is super common in their own rite, but it’s even more common in high tech silicone valley circles:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40401043
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/machine-learning-researcher-links-openai-185652824.html
Most of AI just seems to be blatant theft and copyright issues.
That’s pretty much the whole point.
Making use of other people’s work and likeness in a way that removes any obligations you would normally have to those people.
Just clearly define “copyright violation” for them, and they’ll craft a method that technically eludes your definition.
The precedent in this case already exists in Midler v. Ford Motor Co., in which when Academy Award nominated actress and singer Bette Midler sued Ford after Ford hired musical impersonators to sing famous songs for their commercials.
The court ultimately ruled in favor of Midler, because it was found that Ford gave clear instructions to the impersonating actress to sound as much like Midler as possible, and the ruling was voices, although not copyrightable, still constitutes their distinct identity and is protected against unauthorized use without permission. (Outside of satire, of course, since I doubt someone like Trump would be above suing people for making fun of him.)
I think Scarlett Johansson has a case here, but it really hinges on whether or not OpenAI actively gave the instruction specifically to impersonate Scarlett’s voice in “Her”, or if they used her voice inside the training data at all, since there is a difference in the “Sky” voice and the voice of Scarlett Johansson.
But then again, what do I know, I’m just here to shitpost and promote “Barbie”.
That’s, uh, “Jaime Pressly”, who is totally not esteemed Academy Award nominated character actress Margot Robbie doing an American Southern accent to get more work in the US.
Real talk: at this point, you may be my main reason to still be active on Lemmy.
Hey, I have more than one comedy bit I do here other than something something Hell in a Cell, OK?
Speaking of which, Hell in a Cell isn’t even that exciting anymore after the WWE made it an annual event and painted the cages red, and why did Seth Rollins get disqualified after he attacked “The Fiend” Bray Wyatt with a sledgehammer 2019 even though Hell in a Cell matches have always been no disqualification?
It’s like their script writers don’t even care about their own rules.
I think it’s more fun and productive to abolish intellectual property instead
That’s probably going to be a big deal in future AI lawsuit.
If intellectual property isn’t exterminated wholesale it will lead to explicitely refusing to answer any person or copyrighted works by name.
So instead of “sing a song about bananas by Taylor Swift” it will be “sing a song about banana by a female singer pop singer whose songs are, on the whole, quite straightforward, primarily revolving around the saga of girl-meets-boy, boy-fails-to-live-up-to-expectations, girl-pens-another-breakup-anthem. Each track features tales of romantic entanglements and emotional rollercoasters, culminating in catchy, radio-friendly tunes that are sure to dominate the charts, accompanied by dramatic twists and heartfelt reconciliations that appear almost out of thin air.”
Holy shit we have a character on Lemmy now I’m deleting my Reddit account
Lemmy is gonna lemmy.
There isn’t any evidence that they used her voice for the “Sky” voice model. Actually, there is evidence that they paid a voice actress to model that specific actress’s voice.
That actress sounds similar to Scarlett, but it isn’t Scarlett’s voice. Is that illegal? No. Is it grounds for a suit? maybe. Will Scarlett win? Maybe.
Let’s put it another way. If you wanted to record an audio book, but you wanted the voice actor to have certain qualities that you think would help your book sell. You think Scarlett has all of those qualities, so you ask her if she would record it for you. She declines.
Well shit, that sucks. But wait! She’s not the only person with those vocal qualities. I am sure you can find someone else with very similar qualities. So you hire another voice actress that has all of those–which coincidentally and very understandable sounds a lot like Scarlett. But it isn’t Scarlett.
Everyone wants to say “big corp bad!” here, but if they truly didn’t use Scarlett’s voice and didn’t do any sort of manipulation to make it sound more like Scarlett, then why CANT they do it. I get that Scarlett is upset, but she’s basically mad that someone sounds like her–and decided to work for OpenAI.
If I wanted James Earl Jones to read my eulogy, but he isn’t available or is unwilling. Why couldn’t I get someone to sound like him to read it? Why should he be able to sue me for using a voice actor that sounds similar to him?
There is almost certainly internal communication that basically reads “hey let’s get an actress who sounds as close to ScarJo as possible”. There’s also the CEO tweeting “her” on the day of release.
Is that legal? IANAL, but OpenAI’s reaction of immediately shutting that shit down leads me to believe they realized it is, in fact, illegal.
Your comparison is also incorrect. You’re not getting a JEJ soundalike, you’re getting a JEJ soundalike to do a Darth Vader impersonation. Meaningfully different semantics. They don’t just want “white american woman who vaguely sounds like ScarJo I guess” they have proven beyond doubt that they want “The AI from the 2013 movie Her starring Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson”.
Also legality aside, it’s really fucking weird and ethically wrong. I don’t care if it’s legal or not, you shouldn’t be able to make an AI replicate someone’s voice without their consent.
OpenAI’s actions could just as easily be explained by them seeking to protect their image as much as possible, knowing that if they let the voice stay then bad PR would only grow.
Even if there is no connection to ScarJo in this case, it’s still in OpenAI’s interest to appease the public for the sake of their reputation.
There is without a doubt a connection to ScarJo. They asked her to voice the AI, they asked her again right before release, and the CEO tweeted “her” on release.
The only question is whether, backlash aside, they could technically get away with it (which does not make it right).
There is evidence they wanted to use Johansson’s voice, because they asked to use her voice. Both OpenAI and Johansson have acknowledged this.
As far as I know, OpenAI has said they hired a voice actor before approaching Johansson, but refuses to offer additional information to corroborate.
After failing to secure Johansson to lend her voice to Sky - which is portrayed as having not just a very similar voice, but a very similar personality to Sam - the OpenAI team made several references to the Her movie prior to the announcement.
Similar voices happen. But when all of those other pieces align, it’s fairly clear that they’re copying the character. Focusing on only the voice being similar is reductive. They are committing IP theft and they’re attempting to confer approval/endorsement/a relationship of/to the Sky personality from the people involved in the Her movie.
They might not want to give that actress’s identity out out of a respect for privacy. This information could come out in a closed court room, but with the state of viral social media, it might be smart to hold off on unveiling for now.
I don’t know what their motivation is, but I definitely hope they protect the identity of the voice actress. If her name gets out, it’s basically guaranteed her life would suck for a while.
If she’s like 99% of actors, she’s someone just struggling to get work, who’s lucky if she can afford to rent an apartment without roommates. If her name got out, she’s almost certainly have to deal with death threats, stalkers, etc. Rich celebrities can deal with that kind of attention because they have the money to hire security people, PR people, lawyers, etc. Some random voice actor is not going to have those resources.
And that’s both fine and valid.
If an actor was hired, I could see them being treated as a scab or not being offered roles - perhaps because they agreed to take a job that they had no idea would be used in such a way, or with no idea that a controversy would emerge.
I am dubious, though. It seems that OpenAI pulled the voice shortly after Johansson’s legal team requested information about how the Sky voice was created.
It’s a fair assumption that I’m biased - and I am. I’m not the biggest fan of ‘big tech.’ So perhaps I’m not as objective as others.
But I think the voice actor part is still minor. It’s not just the voice, it’s the character, and all the references to the movie, which I think were intended to deceive consumers and create false sense of endorsement.
Or maybe not, maybe it’s that Sam Altman is a man-child with a crush on Johansson. He’s openly said that Her is his favorite movie, and it’s not a leap to see a CEO cowing his staff into bad decisions.
They are copying the fictional movie character… the voice is a real person and their is precedent that explicitly impersonating a voice is ip theft.
But a fictional personality and a voice that has similar features? I really hope this does settle in court.
Ironically, a similarity to a real, live person without an agenda is not a legal problem unless there’s an implied endorsement from the person. (Which I think was one of the goals here.)
But characters in movies and books are subject to copyright and are considered the intellectual property of the rights holders.
So like, if I wrote a book about Wolverine and used other Marvel X-men, Marvel could sue the shit out of me. Or if I used AI to create Hugh Jackman (as Wolverine) to endorse my bandaid product line, I could also be sued by both Jackman and Marvel.
I think it’s obvious here that Sky was intended to represent Sam from Her, and is almost certainly trained on her voice data (which is copywritten). After a few days thought however, I’m less certain of the argument this could be seen as a false endorsement scheme, since Johansson isn’t mentioned anywhere. (Despite the character being solely played by her, and the numerous attempts to have Johansson work on the project in an official capacity.)
Man, I’m starting to get real tired of Lemmy’s extreme black and white way of talking about issues
I don’t think it is only Lemmy. Most places on the Internet seem to be this way now.
It does seem to be that way. Is the internet getting more extreme and reactionary? Or are we just noticing it more?
There isn’t any evidence that they used her voice
There’s ample evidence, via the samples OpenAI released during their demo.
Actually, there is evidence that they paid a voice actress to model that specific actress’s voice.
Actually, there’s not. OpenAI refuses to release where they got their voice samples. They insist it came from “another unnamed actress”.
She’s not the only person with those vocal qualities.
If the raw data OpenAI used to train its AI came from voice samples produced by Scarlett Johansson, then there actually IS only one person with those vocal qualities.
If I wanted James Earl Jones to read my eulogy, but he isn’t available or is unwilling. Why couldn’t I get someone to sound like him to read it?
Nothing is stopping you from doing this.
However, if you took an existing privately licensed James Earl Jones eulogy and doctored it with AI trained data to replace another person’s name with your name, then you’d be robbing Jones of his work product.
Waving your hands and saying “But maybe I didn’t do the thing I did, so actually its fine” isn’t a credible defense.
Their actions mislead people into believing it’s Scarlett Johanssons voice.
Lawsuits have been won by celebrities because a commercial used a lookalike, which still impacts the celebrity and their brand. They were in the wrong and didn’t care.
She absolutely should sue, and I hope she wins. Their BS excuse of “It’s totally someone else, but you wouldn’t know her, she goes to another school. Also we have to protect her identity for reasons” is as blatant as it gets.
Her identity was never used.
Setting a president that voice can be copyrighted would be extremely bad for everyone who isn’t already a AAA actor.
If I sound like David Attenborough, even if I have an amazing voice, I can never work in any voice acting for the rest of my life. Just because some trust will sue my ass for sounding too similar to David.
We’re not talking about any project though. In your case, it’d only be like an unaffiliated project specifically trying to imitate a project David Attenborough has worked on in an attempt to mislead people to think it could be David Attenborough. There’s always room for parody, but you couldn’t sell your voice as the ‘Planet Earth’ voice.
I asked ChatGPT for a response to your comment
Your comment raises several interesting points regarding the use of voice likeness and the legal implications of hiring voice actors who sound similar to well-known celebrities. Let’s break down the key issues:
-
Use of a Similar Voice: The core of the debate revolves around whether using a voice that sounds like a well-known celebrity constitutes a legal issue. If the voice used is indeed not Scarlett Johansson’s but merely resembles it, this might not be inherently illegal. However, it could still lead to legal disputes over rights of publicity and potential misrepresentation.
-
Voice Acting and Vocal Qualities: It is true that many voice actors can mimic the vocal qualities of celebrities. Hiring a voice actor who naturally has a similar voice to a celebrity is a common practice. The legal line is crossed if the intent and execution imply endorsement or use of the celebrity’s identity without permission.
-
Rights of Publicity: Celebrities, including Scarlett Johansson, have rights of publicity, which protect against unauthorized commercial use of their name, likeness, and other identifiable aspects of their persona. If the resemblance is close enough that it creates confusion or implies endorsement, it could be grounds for a lawsuit.
-
Potential for a Lawsuit: Whether Scarlett Johansson would win a lawsuit depends on several factors, including the jurisdiction’s specific laws on rights of publicity, the exact nature of the voice usage, and whether it can be proven that the voice model intentionally mimics her voice in a way that exploits her identity.
-
Practical Examples: Your analogy with James Earl Jones highlights a key point. If a voice actor is hired for their natural resemblance to a well-known voice, it’s typically acceptable. However, explicitly marketing or promoting the voice in a way that suggests it is the celebrity without their consent could lead to legal challenges.
In summary, while it may not be outright illegal to use a voice that sounds like a celebrity, there are significant legal nuances and potential for litigation if the use implies unauthorized endorsement or exploits the celebrity’s identity. The balance lies in how the voice is marketed and whether it misleads the audience into believing it is the celebrity.
Yup. People up in arms over this should be reminded that if you want to support SJ here that, in a worst case, you are directly supporting the privatization of vocalization. Like to goof around by talking in Morgan Freeman’s voice? Be prepared to get slapped with a notice to stop. That voice is off limits, and oh also your natural voice sounds like this person.
Is this silly? Absolutely. But dammit we see what’s happened to Youtube so be aware of the risk.
Holy fuck how do you not see the difference between “random nobody does an impression for free while hanging out with their pals” and “multi billion startup backed and funded by one of the richest companies on earth uses an impression as a key selling point for their new flagship product that they are charging access for and intend to profit from”
Obviously there is a difference. However, I am very aware that if something can be monetized, someone will try to monetize and monopolize it. A few years ago, and possibly still today, the word Saga was trademarked. Disney has attempted to trademark common phrases and such in some cultures. Sony has made attempts. I’m certain Apple has tried. The Pokemon Company. Nintendo. A tiny Youtube creator uses their own music and one chord sounds vaguely like some song and they get demolished.
Don’t think for a second that companies haven’t sat in meetings and gone, “Do we think we can trademark the sound of a voice? Can we OWN that likeness?” These fuckers would privatize air if they thought they could get away with it. Sound pissed all you want, the reality is we’ve very likely dodged this bullet once or twice already, so we should be aware.
Lemmy seems to love copyright now and walled gardens, they also hate all the companies doing great things with open source ai, etc. Plus there’s never any community projects or anything constructive ever been suggested let alone ran here.
95% of the people here’s political opinions are nothing but an aesthetic.
A big lawsuit is necessary to set a precedence.
Not what you or the Supreme Court thinks.
Phew, good thing the courts in the USA - (a country with sadly laughable protections for people’s rights compared to other large developed regions like the EU) - are the only courts in the world, and what they do is the only thing that matters.
Thanks for telling us all what we think, by the way. Where would we be without an American telling us all what we think?
We’re so lucky.
This article is bullshit man, voice is not even that similar, there is 0 proof that’s her voice or even that they asked her if they can use her voice. People is blowing this out of proportion
But they did ask if they could license her voice and she said no. Balls in your court.
Guy you replied to did miss that part but consider the (still to be verified) facts.
-
they ask to use her voice, she declined.
-
they proceed by not using her voice. Someone else’s voice instead.
oPeNaI “believe that AI voices should not deliberately mimic a celebrity’s distinctive voice—Sky’s voice is not an imitation of Scarlett Johansson but belongs to a different professional actress using her own natural speaking voice. To protect their privacy, we cannot share the names of our voice talents.”
The end result is pretty clear here. Either this other person exist and could testify privately in court with her natural voice which she has the rights to work with OpenAi. There is a closure in law where not being able to provide evidence that the court knows must exist can make you guilty. Openai could have tried to pull a “this is a fully unique synthetic voice” but crucially they did not.
And they didn’t use her voice. Article clearly states that she said she is shocked they choose similar voice to her after she declined. It makes sense for open Ai to choose similar one because when they were preparing list of the voices they obviously wanted voice to be of her kind. It’s not like her voice is something so fucking unique she has copyright over all of the similar voices in the world
