Comment by serial_dev
2 years ago
I don't know, to me, it's just sounds like they know how to cover all their bases.
To me, it sounds like they had the idea to make their AI sound like "her". For the initial version, they had a voice actor that sounds like the movie, as a proof of concept.
They still liked it, so it was time to contact the real star. In the end, it's not just the voice, it would have been the brand, just imagine the buzz they would have got if Scarlett J was the official voice of the company. She said no, and they were like, "too bad, we already decided how she will sound like, the only difference is whether it will be labelled as SJ or not".
In the end, someone probably felt like it's a bit too dodgy as it resemblance was uncanny, they gave it another go, probably ready to offer more money, she still refused, but in the end, it didn't change a thing.
Agreed — seems like they had a plan, and probably talked extensively with Legal about how to develop and execute the plan to give themselves plausible deniability. The tweet was inadvisable, and undoubtedly not part of the actual plan (unless it was to get PR).
I am sure it was for free PR. Streisand effect trap for ScarJo.
They removed ChatGPT's most popular voice in response, causing anger among many of their customers... for PR?
2 replies →
> unless it was to get PR
I think this possibility doesn't receive enough attention, there is a class of people who've figured out that they can say the most scandalous things online and it's a net positive because it generates so much exposure. (As a lowly middle class employee you can't do this - you just get fired and go broke - but at a certain level of wealth and power you're immune from that.) It is the old PT Barnum principle, "They can say whatever they want about me as long as they spell my name right." Guys like Trump and Musk know exactly what they're doing. Why wouldn't Sam?
Johansson's complaint is starting to look a little shaky especially if you remove that "her" Tweet from the equation. I wouldn't put this past Altman at all, he knows exactly what happened and what didn't inside OpenAI, so maybe he knew she didn't have a case and decided to play Sociopathic 3D Chess with her (and beat her in one round)
Johansson might not win a lawsuit, but she isn't looking bad at all. She is totally standup in the Arts vs BigTech AI cultural battle. (See also, Apple's recent iPad crushes all artist material" commercial.)
Nothing in this article changes the essence of her complaint.
The only real, though partial, rebuttal to her is that OpenAI copied a work product she did for a movie, and the movie was was more than her voice, so it's not totally her own work. So maybe the movie team as a whole has a stronger complaint than the voice actor alone.
She didn't lose any game of wits. She just got done dirty by someone who got away with it. She doesn't need money from them. She has respect from people who matter, SAM and OpenAI behaved badly like big tech always does. If OpenAI permanently stops using Johansson-like Sky voice, she'll win what she wanted.
Of course, anyone whose voice sounds like an AI has the unpleasantness of that experience, and a rich person is more able to endure it than a regular Johansson.
As a lowly middle class employee it could be interpreted externally as “representing the company” which is why you see disclaimers like “all views are my own” on some social media profiles. Sam is the company, so they can’t get mad at him, and beyond that he’s a private individual saying whatever he wants on social media without lying.
In order to sue, there need to be damages, and if they didn’t copy the voice then the rest doesn’t matter, which sam and team clearly knew and were fast to work with the news. I agree that smart people take advantage of what they can get away with, but this controversy couldn’t have turned out better for increasing brand awareness good or bad (as you say, just like trump and musk know how to do)
A more charitable scenario might be that they hire the voice actor and it sounds a bit like her. Someone suggests why don't we just get Scarlett to do it properly, wouldn't that be cooler? They reach out and she says no. They decide to continue with the one that sounds a bit like her.
Genuine question;
Why in the world would one expect the more charitable scenario?
It's just a best practice that serves as a healthy counterbalance to cognitive biases, that might otherwise urge us to convict without evidence.
It's not necessarily what will prove true at the end of the day but I think we owe people the presumption of innocence.
7 replies →
Because it follows the legal principle of innocent untill proven guilty? Unlike the "OpenAI must have cloned Scarlett Johansson's voice" wild dystophia speculations.
1 reply →
The Principle of Charity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
Until proven otherwise I try not to assume malice in every action.
That's the same thing, in fewer words. It doesn't change that the beginning and the end are still imitating the original, and this is a billion dollar corporation, not an Elvis personator doing a little show.
This will be used as a template by the entertainment industry to screw over so many people.
How? This kind of thing is already illegal. If I’m producing a commercial for Joe’s Hot Dogs, and I hire a voice actor who sounds like Morgan Freeman, and he never says “I’m Morgan Freeman” but he’s the main voice in the commercial and the cartoon character he’s voicing looks like Morgan Freeman… well, many consumers will be confused into thinking Morgan Freeman likes Joe’s Hot Dogs, and that’s a violation of Morgan Freeman’s trademark.
no, that's definitely not illegal. Voices are not trademarkable, only jingles (melody, words + tone), and of course specific recordings of voices are copyrighted. The ONLY way they get in trouble is if they claim to be Morgan Freeman.
9 replies →
Which part of that is illegal? Because I don't see anything.
11 replies →
[flagged]
> In the end, someone probably felt like it's a bit too dodgy as it resemblance was uncanny
What if it wasn’t a computer voice model but rather a real-life voice actress that you could pay a few cents to try to imitate Scarlett Johansson’s voice as best as she could?
That’s effectively what’s happening here, and it isn’t illegal.
It guess it also leads to the bigger question: do celebrities own their particular frequency range? Is no one allowed to publicly sound like them? Feels like the AACS DVD encryption key controversy all-over again.
>guess it also leads to the bigger question
people are allowed to sound like other people. But if you go to actor 1 and say we want to use your voice for our product, and then they say no, and then you go to actor 2 and tell them I want you to sound like actor 1 for our product, and then you release a statement hey you know that popular movie by actor 1 that just used their voice in a context extremely reminiscent of our product?!? Well, listen to what we got: (actor 2 voice presented)
Then you may run into legal problems.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
on edit: assuming that reports I am reading that the actress used for the voicework claimed not to have been instructed to sound like Her vocal work it sounds like it is probably not likely that a suit would be successful.
The other actress wasn't the only one involved in the production; she provided input but OpenAI building a voice model would involve a lot of data and input. They had to have a model of her ready to go when they asked her for permission immediately before launching; possibly they had one that had been built from her, and another legal-approved that they had converged to be close to the first one but that didn't include her as a direct source.
> What if it wasn’t a computer voice model but rather a real-life voice actress that you could pay a few cents to try to imitate Scarlett Johansson’s voice as best as she could?
> That’s effectively what’s happening here, and it isn’t illegal.
Profiting from someone else's likeness is illegal.
Right of publicity. Profiting of their image without their permission will get you sued. Even if you use an impersonator. If there is a chance the public will connect it with them, you are probably screwed.
e.g.
Vanna White vs Samsung - https://w.wiki/AAUR
Crispin Glover Back to the Future 2 lawsuit - https://w.wiki/AAUT#Back_to_the_Future_Part_II_lawsuit
> That’s effectively what’s happening here, and it isn’t illegal.
It is more complicated than that. Check out Midler v. Ford Motor Co, or Waits V. Frito Lay.
Ford hired impersonators, she's not an impersonator, that's her real voice.
She's allowed to be a voice actor using her real voice.
Your can point to the "Her" tweet, but it's a pretty flimsy argument.
5 replies →
> they gave it another go, probably ready to offer more money, she still refused, but in the end, it didn't change a thing.
That's not what she said happened. She said they released it anyway before she and Sam could connect, after Sam had reached out, for the second time, two days prior to the release.
> In the end, someone probably felt like it's a bit too dodgy as it resemblance was uncanny, they gave it another go, probably ready to offer more money, she still refused,
That was just a few days before launch, right? What was their plan if she said yes at that point? Continue using the "not-her" voice but say it was her? Or did they also have her voice already cloned by then and just needed to flip a switch?
> Continue using the "not-her" voice but say it was her? Or did they also have her voice already cloned by then and just needed to flip a switch?
One or the other. It doesn't really matter as SJ herself would not have necessarily been able to make sure it is not her and not a glitch in how the tech work with her voice.
Sky doesn't sound like the movie, much less "uncanny".
I think it sounds overly enthusiastic though, to the point that it sounds fake. Very overacted and dramatic. I wouldn't want to chat with that voice.
Though admittedly, so does Johansson in "Her". I don't think the voices are very similar but the style is.
Just imagine, if these voice chatbots get popular... they will likely change how people talk!
1 reply →
[dead]
[flagged]
Sure but Skye is still not SJ.