Scarlett Johansson denied OpenAI the right to use her voice. They used it anyway. : technology

[-] Nobody@lemmy.world 509 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 235 points 1 year ago

No, you don’t understand, these guys are tech bros, they’re special, for reasons.

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 240 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] moon@lemmy.ml 108 points 1 year ago

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

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] Kase@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 23 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago

That‘s the type of cockiness you‘d expect from scoundrels who just committed the biggest heist in history and got away with it. I‘m not surprised in the slightest.

[-] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago

These are the same dudes who have LSD and mushroom parties with their female coworkers and then pressure them into sex.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 186 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Most of AI just seems to be blatant theft and copyright issues.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 87 points 1 year ago

No, it's only theft when it's poor people doing it.

When it's rich people, it's fair use of a publicly available resource.

[-] kibiz0r@midwest.social 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 144 points 1 year ago

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".

[-] Ardyssian@sh.itjust.works 28 points 1 year ago

This reads like a lemmy version of a shittymorph post

[-] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] caveman8000@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

Loved you in My Name is Earl

[-] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Real talk: at this point, you may be my main reason to still be active on Lemmy.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] bolexforsoup 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

spoiler

asdfasfasfasfas

load more comments (10 replies)

[-] PiratePanPan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 year ago

Holy shit we have a character on Lemmy now I'm deleting my Reddit account

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[+] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 117 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 67 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] Resonosity@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 year ago

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).

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 28 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Xanis@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 19 points 1 year ago

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"

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Wilshire@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (11 replies)

[-] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 96 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This story is blowing so fucking far out of proportion it's honestly incredible. Just so everyone is one the same page, here is a video timestamped to the voice, and immediately following the voice you can hear the voice from Her as well.

https://youtu.be/3BWjomtK-94?si=tDu574b4GySpnPIy&t=42

They are not similar other than they are both female.

The whole "her" thing that Altman threw up on twitter is just because the goddamned movie was a touchstone for the kind of thing that they are doing. They weren't cloning the fucking voice. It's like naming your new iguana Godzilla. It's not going to destroy Tokyo any time soon, it's just a cultural reference, you know, like a meme.

As far as Johansson goes, she is falling prey to this shit just like every other celebrity that has been railing against big bad AI. There are so many sheisty lawyers trying to get their hands on the first big win from an AI suit that they will say anything to get a celebrity to sue, because if their firm wins, they become the Anti-AI lawfirm that all others will seek in the future. They will print money, but only if something sticks, and so far, nothing has. This will be another case like any other, where they take it to court, and there is no real basis for anything, and it ends up being all over the news and then disappearing like the whole debacle over Sarah Silverman's book. In three months there will be another case against AI, and again, nothing will stick, because the people putting the bug in people's ears don't understand how to use most of the functionality of their cellphone, let alone how generative AI works.

[-] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 47 points 1 year ago

They are not similar other than they are both female.

I thought Ferengi were supposed to have good hearing.

[-] Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

No no you don't understand. Since Scar Jo played a female voice that behaved nicely and made jokes in a movie she now owns the rights to any female (or feminine male voice) that either: makes a joke, says something witty, answers a question, or makes a statement. This is a slam dunk case for Scar Jo. I will also be sued for writing this as she also wrote an email in a movie once that had words in the forms of sentences just like this post so I'm screwed.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Dexx1s@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

Finally, a sane response. Of course they'll "sound similar" because they're both female voices attempting to come off as friendly with an American accent.

I'm more on the side of opposing AI implementations but people are really reaching with this one. I'm assuming it was pulled just so they can get their legal defense in order.

This will be another case like any other, where they take it to court, and there is no real basis for anything

Because then they'll give up whoever it was that they used to voice the AI and it'll be mostly over. The thing is though that if they rush into a lawsuit too eagerly, nobody's going to want to work with them under a similar contract.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 50 points 1 year ago

Welp, we finally have the voice spoofer from Uplink.

"My voice is my passport, verify me."

[-] Baggie@lemmy.zip 24 points 1 year ago

Fuck me sometimes I felt like I was the only person on the planet to play that game

[-] kromem@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

The reference was actually a reference to the earlier movie Sneakers which was one of the first movies about hacking.

And yeah, Uplink was awesome.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] lordmauve@programming.dev 42 points 1 year ago

I doubt they are using Johansson's voice. I expect they need much more studio-quality training data than they would have for her.

The desire to create a "Her" might be real but explains why they chose a similar voice actress, made Sky the default, and continued to pursue Johansson to some day create the real thing.

Suspending the Sky voice looks guilty but it might be a temporary action while the legal team considers their response. There might be a non-zero risk of being found liable if there were directions in the voice casting process to seek a result comparable to Scarlet Johansson. You'd want to collect and assess correspondence to see if that's a possibility, which might take a while.

[-] adam_y@lemmy.world 71 points 1 year ago

If only she was ever in a situation where her voice was professionally recorded.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] CustodialTeapot@lemmy.world 57 points 1 year ago

Wtf is this thinking.

Open Ai wouldn't use something or someone without consent? There's a plethora of lawsuits and evidence that they did that with pretty much every medium out there.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] cbarrick@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Fine tuning a general TTS model on a specific custom voice doesn't require as much data as you think it does.

The hard part is building the foundational model that can be easily fine tuned. And OpenAI has already done that.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago

This is very much the type of case that settles out of court for an undisclosed amount of money.

[-] MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

Something, something... don't ask for permission, ask for forgiveness. Yet, they asked for permission and were denied.

Not sure if they thought they'd get away with it or if they just wanted this publicity. I'm thinking it was their hubris.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

I'm much more concerned about the fact that the voice has simulated emotions behind it, leading people to trust their hallucinating AI even more.

[-] MehBlah@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Send a huge bill and then sue for payment. Let them fight the fight for you.

Technology

Our Rules

Approved Bots