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.
oPeNaI “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.
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.
It makes sense for open Ai to choose similar one because when they were preparing list of the voices they obviously wanted voice to be of her kind. It’s not like her voice is something so fucking unique she has copyright over all of the similar voices in the world
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.
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.
But they did ask if they could license her voice and she said no. Balls in your court.
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.
oPeNaI “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.
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. It makes sense for open Ai to choose similar one because when they were preparing list of the voices they obviously wanted voice to be of her kind. 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?
compliance isn’t admission of guilt but again it’s OPENAI.
Because lawsuits are expensive, even when you’re not guilty.
I don’t think they’d be stupid enough to lie about hiring a voice actress for a voice model when they didn’t.
Avoiding dramas caused by unreasonable human population
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.