1172
this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
1172 points (94.5% liked)
Technology
59168 readers
3377 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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).
And OpenAI successfully, publicly closes down any competition in synthetic AI voices.
Tweeting “her” was stupid but he has stated for years its his favorite movie and honestly even with a wildly different man voice it is still a very similar appearing product as the movie.
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.
Sure, bud
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.)
To be fair, I did choose Sky specifically because it sounded like Scarlett.
I believe she has many reasons to believe they used her voice and I think it's fair for her to want to open a lawsuit. They literally asked her and she said no. They tweeted "Her" which is pretty clearly referencing her role in the film.
References a suit will make will likely be to how US copyright laws prevent people from using lookalikes. AFAIK it’s never had a need to go with sounds like but it’s there to protect “brand of self”
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?
I think everyone is barely holding onto their sanity.
There's ample evidence, via the samples OpenAI released during their demo.
Actually, there's not. OpenAI refuses to release where they got their voice samples. They insist it came from "another unnamed actress".
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.
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.
Rumor has it they've kept her in a jar since birth, her only exposure to the world being through cameras hidden around the Julliard campus.
Their actions mislead people into believing it's Scarlett Johanssons voice.
Did they tho? It clearly says the AI name is Sky and not Scarlett. Misleading would imply they specifically called her out in marketing materials.
If anything, they mimic the AI in the movie Her. If anything they should be the one that might have a case.
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.
That's the thing. The line is too thin. OpenAI is def not in the clear tho, but likeliness should not be copyrighted. But they didn't claim this was Scarlett. At most they are trying to replicate a character in a movie.
If they flat out said "Introducing Scarlett AI" then she might have a case. But they didn't
A voice is too subjective. I for one can tell a very big difference between the voices and they sound like different females. The flirty way Sky is speaking is like Sam from Her. If anything the movie should be upset.
The CEO tweeted 'her' on the day 'Sky' released. If it were a movie, the bad guys would be too dumb to be believable.
Her could mean many things. It could be the way Sam(the movie character) talks. The flirty style. The way Sky can now detect emotion.
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.
Posting raw ChatGPT output is the lowest effort content possible
That was the point.
But why. No one wants to read that shit and if they did they could put it in ChatGPT themselves.
It saved me a click
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.
The problem is that as far as I'm aware there's literally zero evidence of this doomsday scenario you're describing ever happening, despite publicity rights being a thing for over 50 years. Companies have zero interest in monetizing publicity rights to this extent because of the near-certain public backlash, and even if they did, courts have zero interest in enforcing publicity rights against random individuals to avoid inviting a flood of frivolous lawsuits. They're almost exclusively used by individuals to defend against businesses using their likeness without permission.
Okay, fair enough. I did say worst case, though how you explain it makes sense. I don't trust that they won't try eventually, you're probably right that they won't do so without outcry. I appreciate the down to earth reaction and explanation!
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.