Except there wasn't any promotion. The only thing close would be Sams tweet, but this was not an official statement and could easily be explained to refer to the concept of voice assistants in general. The fact that SJ was contacted twice was actually publicized by SJ and not OpenAI.
I don't know what it is about this website that makes discussion of legal issues so frequently poor as it is here right now.
>She absolutely is being deplatformed and her rights are violated.
No. And 'deplatforming' isn't illegal last I checked, whatever you mean it to be.
>If every customer who hires her gets sued, that is basically the same as making it illegal for her to be a VA.
They aren't getting sued because she sounds like ScarJo. In fact, its not clear they are being sued at all. What is illegal, that you do not seem to appreciate, is that regardless of whatever a particular individual looks or sounds like, it does not create a right in others to profit over this similarity in likeness. You cannot hire a Harrison Ford impersonator, to pretend to be Harrison Ford and promote your products. That you re-contextualize this as to Harrison Ford look-alikes being deprived work is just your own sad confusion.
No she just has to do so without promoting it as having been done by Scarlett Johansson.
It wasn't? None of the people I know thought it was Scarlett Johansson.
When Altman tweeted "her" I just thought: "wow, these voices sound really realistic, kinda like the movie"
Is this lawsuit worthy?
Except there wasn't any promotion. The only thing close would be Sams tweet, but this was not an official statement and could easily be explained to refer to the concept of voice assistants in general. The fact that SJ was contacted twice was actually publicized by SJ and not OpenAI.
> The only thing close would be Sams tweet, but this was not an official statement
How is a tweet from the CEO not an official statement?
2 replies →
> Except there wasn't any promotion. The only thing close would be Sams tweet,
Yeah, that's promotion.
> but this was not an official statement
Yes of course it was. That's what being a CEO fricking means.
She isn't the issue, she isn't being sued.
She absolutely is being deplatformed and her rights are violated.
If every customer who hires her gets sued, that is basically the same as making it illegal for her to be a VA.
I don't know what it is about this website that makes discussion of legal issues so frequently poor as it is here right now.
>She absolutely is being deplatformed and her rights are violated.
No. And 'deplatforming' isn't illegal last I checked, whatever you mean it to be.
>If every customer who hires her gets sued, that is basically the same as making it illegal for her to be a VA.
They aren't getting sued because she sounds like ScarJo. In fact, its not clear they are being sued at all. What is illegal, that you do not seem to appreciate, is that regardless of whatever a particular individual looks or sounds like, it does not create a right in others to profit over this similarity in likeness. You cannot hire a Harrison Ford impersonator, to pretend to be Harrison Ford and promote your products. That you re-contextualize this as to Harrison Ford look-alikes being deprived work is just your own sad confusion.
9 replies →