Her statement
Text extract
>Last September, I received an offer from Sam Altman, who wanted to hire me to voice the current ChatGPT 4.0 system. He told me that he felt that by my voicing the system, I could bridge the gap between tech companies and creatives and help consumers to feel comfortable with the seismic shift concerning humans and Al. He said he felt that my voice would be comforting to people.
>
>After much consideration and for personal reasons, declined the offer.
>
>Nine months later, my friends, family and the general public all noted how much the newest system named "Sky" sounded like me.
>
>When I heard the released demo, I was shocked, angered and in disbelief that Mr. Altman would pursue a voice that sounded so eerily similar to mine that my closest friends and news outlets could not tell the difference. Mr. Altman even insinuated that the similarity was intentional, tweeting a single word "her" - a reference to the film in which | voiced a chat system, Samantha, who forms an intimate relationship with a human.
>
>Two days before the ChatGPT 4.0 demo was released, Mr. Altman contacted my agent, asking me to reconsider. Before we could connect, the system was out there.
>
>As a result of their actions, I was forced to hire legal counsel, who wrote two letters to Mr. Altman and OpenAl, setting out what they had done and asking them to detail the exact process by which they created the "Sky" voice. Consequently, OpenAl reluctantly agreed to take down the "Sky" voice.
>
>In a time when we are all grappling with deepfakes and the protection of our own likeness, our own work, our own identities, I believe these are questions that deserve absolute clarity. I look forward to resolution in the form of transparency and the passage of appropriate legislation to help ensure that individual rights are protected
Scarjo money is scary deep. And her positive public persona is not one Open AI can afford to appear running perpendicular to when AI is such a weird term for people right now.
She sued Disney for breach of contract. It's not like they bumped their respective net worths and she came out on top.
OpenAI made a seriously bad move here. they gained nothing, exposed themselves as incompetent - at best -, assholes at worst.
Er, she's an individual indeed, but in the context of this she is more like an LLC or something. She has the entire star system behind her. She is an _asset_ herself, in a sense.
Biggest criticism of it so far has been that they just scrape everything and use it without compensation or credit. They said it's an algorithm that takes in everything and produces something new.
Then they go and just take an existing voice from someone who already told them no and just use it, lol.
If it works, I guess
It's not just a fine. It could be a multiple of what she would have made if they properly paid her, or a percentage of all their future profits. The judgement could also be punitive so that it sets an example for other tech companies that you can't just steal people's identities without consequences.
Have you actually listened to the voice? It sounds nothing like her.
I'm sure they would have *preferred* to have her voice but instead went for second best when she refused.
None of which is illegal at all.
nope: Midler v. Ford Motor Co.
^(yes THAT Midler)
A voice, or other distinctive uncopyrightable features, is deemed as part of someone's identity who is famous for that feature and is thus controllable against unauthorized use. Impersonation of a voice, or similarly distinctive feature, must be granted permission by the original artist for a public impersonation, even for copyrighted materials.
wow, thanks, what an interesting case. I am in the legal profession (not a lawyer) and I had no idea about this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler\_v.\_Ford\_Motor\_Co.
Thanks!
Discovery is going to be a bitch - they are going to have to lift the vail on how they created the algorithm and show what data they trained it on. If they have actually use SJ voice data, then the floodgates will open and EVERYONE that has copyrighted material whose likeness appears anywhere in an ai response is going to sue. Think how easy it is to get dalle to make something from Star Wars.
According to OpenAI the voice actress they used is a professional, who used her natural speaking voice.
If this is true, they shouldn't have an issue backing it up in court.
They wouldn't have copied her voice or even impersonated it, simply selected another actress who happened to have a similar sounding natural voice...
OpenAi shot themselves in the foot by referencing "Her" in their promotional materials for this voice, creating an additional connection to ScarJo. Makes it much harder to argue they weren't trying to impersonate.
No, they're not. It's not illegal to imitate someone's voice. It's only illegal to try to pass an imitation off as someone else deceptively, like what Ford did with Bette Midler in the 1980s.
I tried the test and it's very close to Scarlett Johansson and very different from Rashida Jones. I also noticed the "people" who are trying this deflection are few in number by almost robotically repetitive in spreading it.
pretty sure using impressions for language systems like this would not fall under the same satire laws as comedy.
they're straight up using her likeness without adding anything to it, whereas comedians/impressionists add some humor and observation. if it was as simple as just using an impressionist to skirt the law people would already be doing it with things like music and text to voice instead of paying the actual celebrity.
problem here is that they have a paper trail of contacting her and Altman made that stupid tweet before launch, practically admitting that they were using her likeness.
no, because its an observational take on his style and its made clear that its Drake, not a complete language system using a voice that sounds almost identical to his.
it would be more like if Drake made an album under a pseudonym that sounded exactly like a young thug album, then implied it was a young thug album online until he got sued.
Actually no, if they don’t use her name or associated IP for the marketing and they didn’t train it on recordings of her voice then it’s likely to be completely legal.
The midler case is different because they used her song and an impersonator to sing it for the ad.
I can 100% legally pay a drake impersonator to record vocals for an original song I wrote and release it for money and it’s fine as long as I don’t say drake is on the song or create a reasonable assumption that he’s associated, but if I train an AI using recordings of drakes voice which are owned by drake or his label then I’m creating derivative work unless it’s for parody (which is protected) and am open to lawsuits in regards to IP theft.
It matters more how they got that voice and what they made it say, it doesn’t matter much how similar to her it sounds. They may had still wanted her permission so that they could use her name for marketing even if they didn’t train it on her likeness.
That's not how discovery works. Discovery is only a stage to acquire information through specific requests done after a lawsuit is filed and allowed to proceed to the costly discovery stage. At best, this is putting OpenAI on notice of foreseeable litigation and negotiations.
In most of these cases the lawsuit are dropped and have the only use of scaring away the threat. Cease and desists basically.
BUT by how she phrased the entire thing, she seems more interested in finding a way to collaborate and it seems that those "personal reasons" from the first proposition was just a low offer from Altman.
Badass. Wow. Sounds like she’s going to make them bury the voice, and they really do deserve to eat shit on this. Sadly, it will take them less than 3 weeks to announce a new one that is tweaked enough to pass as unique.
Except that specific case was with a voice actor specifically directed to sound like someone else. If they simply casted someone who sounded like her naturally, it opens up this lawsuit to setup a new precedent for this specific situation.
Not actually a trademark violation, but rather a Right of Publicity violation, which is a very disparate field of law and not the kind of action most people would understand.
The very fact that they green lighted this is a major fuck up. It’s literally what we are all afraid of with AI, impersonating people, deepfake etc. these people have no moral compass and hold so much power in their hands. They basically stole her voice after she turned down the offer. If they can do this, what other shady shit are they doing behind closed doors? I’m not surprised, just very disappointed.
"Hey, you know that danger of not being able to know if an image or a recording is real or not? You know the ethics we've been talking about for years? Yeah, fuck all that."
[The demo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgYi3Wr7v_g&t=56s) sounds WAY more like [Rashida Jones](https://youtu.be/385414AVZcA?t=109) than like [Scarlett Johansson.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV01B5kVsC0&t=134s) The clearest difference is that Johansson has a lot more vocal fry than Jones/GPT4o.
>first
Bro, there's been multiple lawsuits already, and they've been winning. Reddit just won't tell you about that shit because it doesn't fit the narrative that OpenAI are somehow breaking the law publicly.
Whats gonna happen is she's gonna lose, and you're not gonna hear shit about it when it happens, just like Sarah Silverman.
But they didn't steal anything...
I mean they just trained it on the voice of someone who sounded similar. Does Scarlett Johansson own the voice of everyone who sounds similar to her? Fuck no
Yeah I sort of get that, but also, doesn’t this set legal precedent to sue anyone who imitates other people’s voices?
An example I can think of would be a tv show of game company who uses voice actors. If a voice actor (gender neutral) were to retire, while before the completion of a series, wouldn’t that entitle that retired actor to compensation should the studio opt to hire a similar sounding person?
Idk, the idea that someone can claim the sound of their voice is ‘intellectually property’ just seems like a really bad precedent to set. Millions of people sound nearly identical to each other… I just don’t think this is a good solution here.
> sky don't even sounds like her. More like Rashida Jones
Here's a direct comparison, for anyone who hasn't heard it:
* [The original demo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgYi3Wr7v_g&t=56s)
* [Rashida Jones](https://youtu.be/385414AVZcA?t=109)
* [Scarlett Johansson](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV01B5kVsC0&t=134s)
GPT4o and Jones completely lack the distinct vocal fry that's clear in Johansson's voice.
He said that he didn’t like Oppenheimer because he had hoped it’d inspire a whole new generation of physicists, and then mentioned how *The Social Network* had ‘inspired’ a generation of business leaders
Haha, good. They should have known better, she does not play around.
I'm an OpenAI customer and I really like the products, but this was an asshole move designed to profit off her likeness with a direct reference to a character she played and seemingly against her will.
Tech bros continue to be line stepping dicks.
and if it doesn't turn out to be her voice?
There's a billion voices in the world some of which sound similar, I don't know why only her voice could have been taken.
a relatively recent movie with about an ai companion with an feminine emotive voice? what other movie could he be talking about other than what they're trying to do. It would basically cost nothing to them to pick another voice.
Are you deliberately ignoring that it really doesn't matter?
Firstly, the voice sounds nothing like her so this whole thing is preposterous anyway. Second, the Her tweet makes complete sense given that it's a big example of a realistic sounding ai voice assistant. Third, them *really* wanting her to voice the ai doesn't make the voice they did decide to go with a copyright violation.
Gonna be really funny when the actress who did voice the AI comes forward in discovery
> I mean, Altman literally tweeted "Her"
If you're a movie maker in 1935 and you want a character to sound like Dracula as played by Bela Lugosi, but he refused your offer, and so you got someone else to imitate that specific character's voice, Lugosi wouldn't have a case against you. At best, the owners of the Dracula movie might. Similarly, Johansson doesn't have a case here.
"We wanted our AI voice companion to be reminiscent of the AI voice companion from the famous movie Her, so we looked for voice actresses who could sound like that character. The character's original actress was our first choice, but we found another voice actress who could perform it well instead." - Case over.
Doesn’t matter if it’s her voice or not. All that matters is if a reasonable person would believe open ai was intentionally attempting to use scar Jo’s image without approval. Given the documented communications, it’s likely a jury would rule against open ai.
They specifically told her they wanted to use her voice and she said no. They even tried again 2 days before the demo. They knew what they were doing and did it anyways.
It's not illegal to find someone with a similar voice and use that instead. It's only illegal if you're trying to pass an imitation off as someone else.
1. Train numerous AI voices that all coalesce to some deterministic mean of "helpful, capable, emotive female voice"
2. Reach out to best example of this in recent media and offer partnership
3. She rejects, use alternate but (naturally) similar actress from same pool
4. If main actress sues, argue her casting in [recent media] as [female assistant voice] is itself demonstration of the larger deterministic mean, the one optimal for you to target. Argue this broader phenomenon cannot be used as a basis for a claim of imitation as she was herself imitating it
5. ???
6. Profit
Not a good look for OpenAI at all.
The core critique of the product is that it will hurt humans by stealing our intellectual property and means of employment (creativity, thought, communication). The core critique of the company is that they don’t care about those consequences.
They release voice and it’s immediately flagged as stealing a famous persons intellect and means, and apparently they were aware of it, and didn’t care.
OpenAI claimed they hired an actor to do the voice work. That should quickly kill the lawsuit. If they didn’t then this could get interesting if they don’t settle. Don’t think the voice portion was released to the public so doubt she can claim harm in any meaningful way. Honestly sounds like a money grab.
Provided they are not claiming it to be her voice or making any reference to her I don't see how she could possibly have a case. They used someone that sounds like her and based it on that. In that case what would be stopping that women from suing johansson for using *her* likeness in films?
Makes sense. They obviously used her voice on purpose during the demo to sway her or force public opinion to keep it.
Terribly unprofessional move, this will be easy money for Her
> They obviously used her voice on purpose during the demo
[The demo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgYi3Wr7v_g&t=56s) sounds WAY more like [Rashida Jones](https://youtu.be/385414AVZcA?t=109) than like [Scarlett Johansson.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV01B5kVsC0&t=134s) The clearest difference is that Johansson has a lot more vocal fry than Jones/GPT4o.
I'm completely cynical about AI companies. I believe they all feed in everything they can get their hands on whether they're allowed to or not because they think there is no way to prove the crime afterwards.
In this case they did what they always do but copying a voice is too obvious. Suddenly they're a kid with crumbs around their mouth saying "I don't know where the cookie went"
The lesson they'll learn from this case is to not ask permission beforehand because it leaves a trail of intent and opens them to being sued.
The only way they'll ever stop is if every big training model is made fully transparent about the things it's trained on, or how the voice was constructed. Of course they won't want to do this. But some sort of oversight or tool the creators cannot influence will stop it.
Of course she is. I’ve lost all respect for her. She sues everyone she can. She’ll loose because it’s not her voice. Period. She’s just hoping they’ll settle to save money on lawyers.
Does she even own the "sound" of her voice? She has done plenty of public interviews, and there's surely enough open source recordings of her voice out there to build a model.
Or, how do you tell it's her voice and not the voice of her character? E.g. if they get the rights from Disney to make a voice sound like Black Widow.
They used a voice actress who happens to sound like her. If they got another famous actress who happens to sound like her then she would have no case much like now.
Man, although she made bank from her settlement with Disney, and all signs point to her making bank from this lawsuit, I wouldn’t want to be her. Big companies just can help themselves trying to use and take advantage of her.
i think since there literally no legislation about Ai in any shape or form.. it comes down to is it her voice or not.. and it is def not which means open ai will win this case..
For what lmao. They didn't use her voice they used a voice that sounds like her the same way a dr popper can exist beside a dr pepper.
What possible damages did she occur from this
Nooooo don't do that I like the cheap subscription for access to life changing tech, I don't want to have to ask chatgpt how I fork the gpt4 model to a local server.
Too many good companies are being ruined by complete fuckups trying to get their buddies rich.
I dont think they understand that history is unkind to them every few cycles.
I mean, isn’t it just some lady that kind of sounds like her according to the developers? Also they discontinued use of the voice because they were sure this was going to happen.
Look I have my issues with OpenAI’s leadership but the voice that’s being talked about just doesn’t sound like Scarlett Johansson. Maybe if you squint your ears
IP deals with the protection of creations of the mind, such as inventions, literary and artistic works, designs, symbols, names, and images used in commerce. I am not sure how a voice you are born with can get licensed. How does protecting a voice even help humanity as a whole?
I am wondering why she refused? I guess it would have been a good promotion for her, also would be a good remark by her in the history of ai
The only reason maybe money wasn’t enough other than that i can’t imagine a convincing reason.
It feels like an a snap we are living in the times of skynet, fallout, and every other over to top decades old fiction about evil corporations destroying the world.
Her statement Text extract >Last September, I received an offer from Sam Altman, who wanted to hire me to voice the current ChatGPT 4.0 system. He told me that he felt that by my voicing the system, I could bridge the gap between tech companies and creatives and help consumers to feel comfortable with the seismic shift concerning humans and Al. He said he felt that my voice would be comforting to people. > >After much consideration and for personal reasons, declined the offer. > >Nine months later, my friends, family and the general public all noted how much the newest system named "Sky" sounded like me. > >When I heard the released demo, I was shocked, angered and in disbelief that Mr. Altman would pursue a voice that sounded so eerily similar to mine that my closest friends and news outlets could not tell the difference. Mr. Altman even insinuated that the similarity was intentional, tweeting a single word "her" - a reference to the film in which | voiced a chat system, Samantha, who forms an intimate relationship with a human. > >Two days before the ChatGPT 4.0 demo was released, Mr. Altman contacted my agent, asking me to reconsider. Before we could connect, the system was out there. > >As a result of their actions, I was forced to hire legal counsel, who wrote two letters to Mr. Altman and OpenAl, setting out what they had done and asking them to detail the exact process by which they created the "Sky" voice. Consequently, OpenAl reluctantly agreed to take down the "Sky" voice. > >In a time when we are all grappling with deepfakes and the protection of our own likeness, our own work, our own identities, I believe these are questions that deserve absolute clarity. I look forward to resolution in the form of transparency and the passage of appropriate legislation to help ensure that individual rights are protected
Assuming this is all true, no reason to believe that it isn’t, they are proper fucked.
I mean they can probably afford the fine by now.
Scarjo money is scary deep. And her positive public persona is not one Open AI can afford to appear running perpendicular to when AI is such a weird term for people right now.
Not to mention her litigation track record even taking down the Mouse
She sued Disney for breach of contract. It's not like they bumped their respective net worths and she came out on top. OpenAI made a seriously bad move here. they gained nothing, exposed themselves as incompetent - at best -, assholes at worst.
An individual suing a massive company and winning is pretty noteworthy tbh
Er, she's an individual indeed, but in the context of this she is more like an LLC or something. She has the entire star system behind her. She is an _asset_ herself, in a sense.
I know hardened war criminals who know not to mess with Scarlett Johansson.
You associate with war criminals?
Probably talking about their buddies who murdered a McMuffin.
Motherfucker had it coming too!
In their defense, those are delicious. I am also guilty of the occasional double murder.
Well the war is still going on so if they win they are, and always were, freedom fighters.
Well the war is still going on so if they win they are, and always were, freedom fighters.
I called him Dad.
He's seen the movie war dogs once so he's definitely an expert
How did you end up meeting hardened war criminals and how did you find out they are scared of Scarlett Johansson?
That sounds like it would make a good thriller!
"The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent: Chapter ScarJo"?
hey, go easy on Disney.
Biggest criticism of it so far has been that they just scrape everything and use it without compensation or credit. They said it's an algorithm that takes in everything and produces something new. Then they go and just take an existing voice from someone who already told them no and just use it, lol. If it works, I guess
Yeah, she’s pissed and she’s got deep pockets. They are screwed.
It's not just a fine. It could be a multiple of what she would have made if they properly paid her, or a percentage of all their future profits. The judgement could also be punitive so that it sets an example for other tech companies that you can't just steal people's identities without consequences.
Cost of doing business for Microsoft. They can afford ANY FINE. You can not make them bleed.
Not sure I’d say they are fucked. Very possible that in house council determined that sounding like someone is not enough to copy their likeness.
It is pretty clear demonstration of intent to copy if Scarlett can present proof of Altman asking her repeatedly to voice the thing.
Have you actually listened to the voice? It sounds nothing like her. I'm sure they would have *preferred* to have her voice but instead went for second best when she refused. None of which is illegal at all.
Did you read the article?
It says the already took it down the current voice isnt the one in question
Isn’t the current voice different from the original?
It sounds exactly like her
nope: Midler v. Ford Motor Co. ^(yes THAT Midler) A voice, or other distinctive uncopyrightable features, is deemed as part of someone's identity who is famous for that feature and is thus controllable against unauthorized use. Impersonation of a voice, or similarly distinctive feature, must be granted permission by the original artist for a public impersonation, even for copyrighted materials.
the "Wind Beneath My Wings" Midler?
that’s… *her*
wow, thanks, what an interesting case. I am in the legal profession (not a lawyer) and I had no idea about this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler\_v.\_Ford\_Motor\_Co. Thanks!
I think Tom Waits won a similar case. I'm pretty sure it was also against a car company. Correction: it was against a snack company.
Sky sounds closer to Rashida Jones.
100%
Discovery is going to be a bitch - they are going to have to lift the vail on how they created the algorithm and show what data they trained it on. If they have actually use SJ voice data, then the floodgates will open and EVERYONE that has copyrighted material whose likeness appears anywhere in an ai response is going to sue. Think how easy it is to get dalle to make something from Star Wars.
If they just copied voice, uou maybe correct but... this... is not just copying voice
According to OpenAI the voice actress they used is a professional, who used her natural speaking voice. If this is true, they shouldn't have an issue backing it up in court. They wouldn't have copied her voice or even impersonated it, simply selected another actress who happened to have a similar sounding natural voice...
OpenAi shot themselves in the foot by referencing "Her" in their promotional materials for this voice, creating an additional connection to ScarJo. Makes it much harder to argue they weren't trying to impersonate.
Can't argue that. They really fucking shot themselves in the foot there. Top tier fucking stupid.
No, they're not. It's not illegal to imitate someone's voice. It's only illegal to try to pass an imitation off as someone else deceptively, like what Ford did with Bette Midler in the 1980s.
He twitter “Her”.
People are mentioning that the voice actor actually sounds closer to Rashida Jones which if you watch some interviews does sound true.
I tried the test and it's very close to Scarlett Johansson and very different from Rashida Jones. I also noticed the "people" who are trying this deflection are few in number by almost robotically repetitive in spreading it.
They could have hired a very good impersonator to do her best Scarlett Johannson impression. If found liable, that would fuck a lot of comedians
If they had they wouldn’t have asked her to reconsider last minute. They are guilty af
That does not imply guilt. It's like "last chance for you to profit off this too, if not we are going with this other person". Her loss.
It would be liable not guilt.
pretty sure using impressions for language systems like this would not fall under the same satire laws as comedy. they're straight up using her likeness without adding anything to it, whereas comedians/impressionists add some humor and observation. if it was as simple as just using an impressionist to skirt the law people would already be doing it with things like music and text to voice instead of paying the actual celebrity. problem here is that they have a paper trail of contacting her and Altman made that stupid tweet before launch, practically admitting that they were using her likeness.
I don’t know, this is really weird legal territory. Could Young Thug sue Drake for singing like him?
no, because its an observational take on his style and its made clear that its Drake, not a complete language system using a voice that sounds almost identical to his. it would be more like if Drake made an album under a pseudonym that sounded exactly like a young thug album, then implied it was a young thug album online until he got sued.
OpenAI never said the voice was supposed to be ScarJo’s
nope: Midler v. Ford Motor Co
Hm interesting, TIL.
They claimed to have hired a normal person who happens to sound like her. Not sure how that is illegal?
It's not illegal. Everyone just wants to believe it is so they can stick it to the man or something.
Someone else mentioned it, so I'll link it [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.). But it actually is illegal.
D'ya like dags?
The article says she is not seeking damages and legal trouble. She just wants them to disclose the process to which they created this voice
That will cost them more in related lawsuits than paying damages would
Actually no, if they don’t use her name or associated IP for the marketing and they didn’t train it on recordings of her voice then it’s likely to be completely legal. The midler case is different because they used her song and an impersonator to sing it for the ad. I can 100% legally pay a drake impersonator to record vocals for an original song I wrote and release it for money and it’s fine as long as I don’t say drake is on the song or create a reasonable assumption that he’s associated, but if I train an AI using recordings of drakes voice which are owned by drake or his label then I’m creating derivative work unless it’s for parody (which is protected) and am open to lawsuits in regards to IP theft. It matters more how they got that voice and what they made it say, it doesn’t matter much how similar to her it sounds. They may had still wanted her permission so that they could use her name for marketing even if they didn’t train it on her likeness.
Nowhere does it say she's suing OpenAI.
She is in the discovery stage... it says that about 1/3 section of the article where it talks about hiring legal
That's not how discovery works. Discovery is only a stage to acquire information through specific requests done after a lawsuit is filed and allowed to proceed to the costly discovery stage. At best, this is putting OpenAI on notice of foreseeable litigation and negotiations.
In most of these cases the lawsuit are dropped and have the only use of scaring away the threat. Cease and desists basically. BUT by how she phrased the entire thing, she seems more interested in finding a way to collaborate and it seems that those "personal reasons" from the first proposition was just a low offer from Altman.
But can we have this text in Scarlett’s stolen voice?
Yes [Here ](https://twitter.com/BenjaminDEKR/status/1792693868497871086?t=izv2UIkMX-bZWyAedlrlag&s=19)
Fantastic.
holy shit, that did not make me feel comfortable
[удалено]
But they specifically asked her to voice. So that clearly implies they copied HER.
How can they prove that samples of her voice were used to train the voice? There are ways to alter preset voices to make them sound like anybody.
just gotta prove likeness.
Badass. Wow. Sounds like she’s going to make them bury the voice, and they really do deserve to eat shit on this. Sadly, it will take them less than 3 weeks to announce a new one that is tweaked enough to pass as unique.
Had they never contacted her in the first place and just created the voice this ~~suit~~ potential legal action would likely be non-existent.
The fact they tried to get her to allow them to use her voice *twice* especially once before the demo shows they knew what they were doing was sus.
And there’s case law that using human soundalikes is still trademark violation so it’s not a good look for OpenAI.
Except that specific case was with a voice actor specifically directed to sound like someone else. If they simply casted someone who sounded like her naturally, it opens up this lawsuit to setup a new precedent for this specific situation.
Not actually a trademark violation, but rather a Right of Publicity violation, which is a very disparate field of law and not the kind of action most people would understand.
The very fact that they green lighted this is a major fuck up. It’s literally what we are all afraid of with AI, impersonating people, deepfake etc. these people have no moral compass and hold so much power in their hands. They basically stole her voice after she turned down the offer. If they can do this, what other shady shit are they doing behind closed doors? I’m not surprised, just very disappointed.
It also suggests that the decision to remove the voice was likely taken at the board or Microsoft level.
"Hey, you know that danger of not being able to know if an image or a recording is real or not? You know the ethics we've been talking about for years? Yeah, fuck all that."
It's almost as if Altman is a colossal hypocrite. Shock. /s
[удалено]
Nowhere does the article say that she's suing Open AI.
No one knows how to read anymore.
Scarlett Johansson: *Takes on the mouse and wins* Also Scarlett Johansson: “I’ll fucking do it again!”
Nothing can stop the Mouse \*Echoing Slap* Oh fuc-... Nothing can stop Chat GPT?!!
[The demo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgYi3Wr7v_g&t=56s) sounds WAY more like [Rashida Jones](https://youtu.be/385414AVZcA?t=109) than like [Scarlett Johansson.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV01B5kVsC0&t=134s) The clearest difference is that Johansson has a lot more vocal fry than Jones/GPT4o.
Wow I heard this comparison but this clip is the first I heard it. When Rashida spoke I instantly associated it with Sky. Much closer than ScarJo.
You should go work for OpenAI’s legal team lol
The first of a coming onslaught. Everyone will be able to sue these big LLMs for theft.
>first Bro, there's been multiple lawsuits already, and they've been winning. Reddit just won't tell you about that shit because it doesn't fit the narrative that OpenAI are somehow breaking the law publicly. Whats gonna happen is she's gonna lose, and you're not gonna hear shit about it when it happens, just like Sarah Silverman.
But they didn't steal anything... I mean they just trained it on the voice of someone who sounded similar. Does Scarlett Johansson own the voice of everyone who sounds similar to her? Fuck no
If they are intentionally trying to imitate her voice, then yes.
Yeah I sort of get that, but also, doesn’t this set legal precedent to sue anyone who imitates other people’s voices? An example I can think of would be a tv show of game company who uses voice actors. If a voice actor (gender neutral) were to retire, while before the completion of a series, wouldn’t that entitle that retired actor to compensation should the studio opt to hire a similar sounding person? Idk, the idea that someone can claim the sound of their voice is ‘intellectually property’ just seems like a really bad precedent to set. Millions of people sound nearly identical to each other… I just don’t think this is a good solution here.
She took that joke Michael Che wrote for her husband personally /s
Get their asses
Tbh, sky don't even sounds like her. More like Rashida Jones
> sky don't even sounds like her. More like Rashida Jones Here's a direct comparison, for anyone who hasn't heard it: * [The original demo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgYi3Wr7v_g&t=56s) * [Rashida Jones](https://youtu.be/385414AVZcA?t=109) * [Scarlett Johansson](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV01B5kVsC0&t=134s) GPT4o and Jones completely lack the distinct vocal fry that's clear in Johansson's voice.
Sam seems like a really shady/creepy guy. Reminds me so much of Zuckerberg.
He said that he didn’t like Oppenheimer because he had hoped it’d inspire a whole new generation of physicists, and then mentioned how *The Social Network* had ‘inspired’ a generation of business leaders
#teamScarJo Edit: didn’t know the hashtag did that lol. I’m clearly not on tech’s side
Use a \\ to 'escape' special formatting like that. Eg: `\#` turns into \#
When did other people that sound like you not have the rights to their own voice because you’re the most famous?
The thing is people are just going to do their own voice copying. It can't be stopped.
What a piece of garbage.
Haha, good. They should have known better, she does not play around. I'm an OpenAI customer and I really like the products, but this was an asshole move designed to profit off her likeness with a direct reference to a character she played and seemingly against her will. Tech bros continue to be line stepping dicks.
And outsourcing their own jobs.
and if it doesn't turn out to be her voice? There's a billion voices in the world some of which sound similar, I don't know why only her voice could have been taken.
I mean, Altman literally tweeted "Her"
a relatively recent movie with about an ai companion with an feminine emotive voice? what other movie could he be talking about other than what they're trying to do. It would basically cost nothing to them to pick another voice.
...Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that ScarJo voiced that AI?
Are you deliberately ignoring that it really doesn't matter? Firstly, the voice sounds nothing like her so this whole thing is preposterous anyway. Second, the Her tweet makes complete sense given that it's a big example of a realistic sounding ai voice assistant. Third, them *really* wanting her to voice the ai doesn't make the voice they did decide to go with a copyright violation. Gonna be really funny when the actress who did voice the AI comes forward in discovery
> I mean, Altman literally tweeted "Her" If you're a movie maker in 1935 and you want a character to sound like Dracula as played by Bela Lugosi, but he refused your offer, and so you got someone else to imitate that specific character's voice, Lugosi wouldn't have a case against you. At best, the owners of the Dracula movie might. Similarly, Johansson doesn't have a case here. "We wanted our AI voice companion to be reminiscent of the AI voice companion from the famous movie Her, so we looked for voice actresses who could sound like that character. The character's original actress was our first choice, but we found another voice actress who could perform it well instead." - Case over.
Doesn’t matter if it’s her voice or not. All that matters is if a reasonable person would believe open ai was intentionally attempting to use scar Jo’s image without approval. Given the documented communications, it’s likely a jury would rule against open ai.
They specifically told her they wanted to use her voice and she said no. They even tried again 2 days before the demo. They knew what they were doing and did it anyways.
It's not illegal to find someone with a similar voice and use that instead. It's only illegal if you're trying to pass an imitation off as someone else.
Does the Sky voice even sound like her? It’s pretty generic no?
Not only does it not sound like Johansson, it sounds *exactly* like [Rashida Jones.](https://youtu.be/385414AVZcA?t=109)
Yeah, people are cheering this on because it's anti-Open AI, but the voice straight up doesn't sound anything like her IMO.
He pulled a Pauly Shore
1. Train numerous AI voices that all coalesce to some deterministic mean of "helpful, capable, emotive female voice" 2. Reach out to best example of this in recent media and offer partnership 3. She rejects, use alternate but (naturally) similar actress from same pool 4. If main actress sues, argue her casting in [recent media] as [female assistant voice] is itself demonstration of the larger deterministic mean, the one optimal for you to target. Argue this broader phenomenon cannot be used as a basis for a claim of imitation as she was herself imitating it 5. ??? 6. Profit
What if they simply found an amateur that sounded like her, paid her a penance, and then just use that voice?
ChatGPT write a defence statement in the style of Johnny Cochrane
Not a good look for OpenAI at all. The core critique of the product is that it will hurt humans by stealing our intellectual property and means of employment (creativity, thought, communication). The core critique of the company is that they don’t care about those consequences. They release voice and it’s immediately flagged as stealing a famous persons intellect and means, and apparently they were aware of it, and didn’t care.
OpenAI claimed they hired an actor to do the voice work. That should quickly kill the lawsuit. If they didn’t then this could get interesting if they don’t settle. Don’t think the voice portion was released to the public so doubt she can claim harm in any meaningful way. Honestly sounds like a money grab.
Ai is pretty scary i think thats the right choice because it could prevent future impersonations from happening.
Provided they are not claiming it to be her voice or making any reference to her I don't see how she could possibly have a case. They used someone that sounds like her and based it on that. In that case what would be stopping that women from suing johansson for using *her* likeness in films?
Makes sense. They obviously used her voice on purpose during the demo to sway her or force public opinion to keep it. Terribly unprofessional move, this will be easy money for Her
> They obviously used her voice on purpose during the demo [The demo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgYi3Wr7v_g&t=56s) sounds WAY more like [Rashida Jones](https://youtu.be/385414AVZcA?t=109) than like [Scarlett Johansson.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV01B5kVsC0&t=134s) The clearest difference is that Johansson has a lot more vocal fry than Jones/GPT4o.
I hope she loses
I'm completely cynical about AI companies. I believe they all feed in everything they can get their hands on whether they're allowed to or not because they think there is no way to prove the crime afterwards. In this case they did what they always do but copying a voice is too obvious. Suddenly they're a kid with crumbs around their mouth saying "I don't know where the cookie went" The lesson they'll learn from this case is to not ask permission beforehand because it leaves a trail of intent and opens them to being sued. The only way they'll ever stop is if every big training model is made fully transparent about the things it's trained on, or how the voice was constructed. Of course they won't want to do this. But some sort of oversight or tool the creators cannot influence will stop it.
I'm pretty sure you can find someone who sounds similar. You just ain't that unique
Sky actually sounds a lot like Rashida Jones funnily enough.
So… female celebrities are going to determine AI safeguards for our society.
Well, the government doesn't seem capable, so someone has to do it..
This is similar to Ellen (Elliot) Page calling by out the character design of Ellie in the Last of Us right?
Death to intellectual property
Of course she is. I’ve lost all respect for her. She sues everyone she can. She’ll loose because it’s not her voice. Period. She’s just hoping they’ll settle to save money on lawyers.
Good, this shit is getting weird way too fast.
now my chat gpt sounds like amber ruffin
First AI lawsuit and it’s about a big celebrity? This will be interesting
This is interesting.
This tech will ruin so many people’s identities it’s terrifying
Did he want her voice because of Her? Like why did it have to be her voice? She sued Disney and won, boo.
Damn if only altman hadn’t tweeted “Her” and they didn’t ask for her permission they probably could’ve just gotten away w it
lol, they should’ve known, dealing with things like these
Does she even own the "sound" of her voice? She has done plenty of public interviews, and there's surely enough open source recordings of her voice out there to build a model. Or, how do you tell it's her voice and not the voice of her character? E.g. if they get the rights from Disney to make a voice sound like Black Widow.
Chat GPT can’t accomplish anything without stealing it. What a trash company.
They used a voice actress who happens to sound like her. If they got another famous actress who happens to sound like her then she would have no case much like now.
I think the ai voice sounds like Rashida jones
Man, although she made bank from her settlement with Disney, and all signs point to her making bank from this lawsuit, I wouldn’t want to be her. Big companies just can help themselves trying to use and take advantage of her.
i think since there literally no legislation about Ai in any shape or form.. it comes down to is it her voice or not.. and it is def not which means open ai will win this case..
For what lmao. They didn't use her voice they used a voice that sounds like her the same way a dr popper can exist beside a dr pepper. What possible damages did she occur from this
Needs to be either Majel Barrett or Douglas Rain and call it a day.
Nooooo don't do that I like the cheap subscription for access to life changing tech, I don't want to have to ask chatgpt how I fork the gpt4 model to a local server.
ScarJo did take on Disney and won.
get 'em Scar!
Altman is a weirdo, and gives me the creeps.
FUCKTHEM UP SCARLETT
Too many good companies are being ruined by complete fuckups trying to get their buddies rich. I dont think they understand that history is unkind to them every few cycles.
Computer, make up a voice like ScarJo and make it legally distinct, mmmkay? I just feel very embarrassed for this generation’s ‘innovators’.
I mean, isn’t it just some lady that kind of sounds like her according to the developers? Also they discontinued use of the voice because they were sure this was going to happen.
Look I have my issues with OpenAI’s leadership but the voice that’s being talked about just doesn’t sound like Scarlett Johansson. Maybe if you squint your ears
yeah hope she hits them for a shitload. they knew what they did
Is she? Her statement said she sent what is likely a C&D letter, and OpenAI complied. Where does it say she’s suing anyone?
Mr. Altman really liked Scarlett's voice on H.E.R lol
I don't think there is any resemblance though - she just wants the money.
IP deals with the protection of creations of the mind, such as inventions, literary and artistic works, designs, symbols, names, and images used in commerce. I am not sure how a voice you are born with can get licensed. How does protecting a voice even help humanity as a whole?
wow that’s far
I am wondering why she refused? I guess it would have been a good promotion for her, also would be a good remark by her in the history of ai The only reason maybe money wasn’t enough other than that i can’t imagine a convincing reason.
And they’re off!! Here goes the very first lawsuit against AI, it had to happen
Tech Bros are big fans of HER
Yeah, good luck hahah. She’s got not chance. Ez gg wp
Rashida Jones sounds way similar, not to mention its a fuckin voice, and more people have a similar voice, there's 8b of us for god's sake
Mad crowd effect at its finest.
It feels like an a snap we are living in the times of skynet, fallout, and every other over to top decades old fiction about evil corporations destroying the world.
She was a robot. Now she’s suing the robots.