WilshireScarlett Johansson denied OpenAI the right to use her voice. They used it anyway.
SnausagesinaBlanketA big lawsuit is necessary to set a precedence.
pyrflieNot what you or the Supreme Court thinks.
Death is the outcome of this. Only the living can bring a case. Kill them fast enough and the case dies.
The otherside is just as gruesome.
Wtf are you talking about
ObiniceNot what you or the Supreme Court thinks.
Phew, good thing the courts in the USA - (a country with sadly laughable protections for people’s rights compared to other large developed regions like the EU) - are the only courts in the world, and what they do is the only thing that matters.
Thanks for telling us all what we think, by the way. Where would we be without an American telling us all what we think?
We’re so lucky.
Are you telling me they’re going to assassinate Scarlett Johansson
This article is bullshit man, voice is not even that similar, there is 0 proof that’s her voice or even that they asked her if they can use her voice. People is blowing this out of proportion
But they did ask if they could license her voice and she said no. Balls in your court.
And they didn’t use her voice. Article clearly states that she said she is shocked they choose similar voice to her after she declined.
Which makes sense because when they were preparing list of the voices they obviously wanted voices that are similar to hers. It’s not like her voice is something so fucking unique she has copyright over all of the similar voices in the world
And despite all your lame denials they are shutting that voice down. Why is that?
Avoiding dramas caused by unreasonable human population
compliance isn’t admission of guilt then again it’s OPENAI.
I guess every out of court settlement is an admission of guilt in your eyes? It’s nothing to do with the massive amount of money wasted dealing with legal matters or anything.
The court of public opinion has a much lower burden of proof than the court of law.
If Scarlett Johansson is trying to accuse them of using her voice without consent, do you really think it will only end up in the court of public opinion? My point is that it might escalate to court, which OpenAI might not want to deal with. Backing down in this case is just as much of an admission of guilt as taking a settlement out of court, which is not at all.
just another devBecause lawsuits are expensive, even when you’re innocent.
Guy you replied to did miss that part but consider the (still to be verified) facts.
-
they ask to use her voice, she declined.
-
they proceed by not using her voice. Someone else’s voice instead.
“We believe that AI voices should not deliberately mimic a celebrity’s distinctive voice—Sky’s voice is not an imitation of Scarlett Johansson but belongs to a different professional actress using her own natural speaking voice. To protect their privacy, we cannot share the names of our voice talents.
The end result is pretty clear here. Either this other person exist and could testify privately in court with her natural voice which she has the rights to work with OpenAi. There is a closure in law where not being able to provide evidence that the court knows must exist can make you guilty. Openai could have tried to pull a “this is a fully unique synthetic voice” but crucially they did not.