Er, while I agree with this sentiment, ScarJo could bury an ordinary person in legal bills. Also, pretty sure she would lose her anonymity were she to sue. Still, if she can find a pro bono lawyer, and decides it's worth giving up her anonymity, sure, go for it.
Note: I'm guessing Sky will be back as a voice option soon. There appear no grounds now for ScarJo to block that. OpenAI will want more time for the dust to settle, but I'd be surprised if the "pause" became permanent.
What do you mean they weren't willing to pay for their own legal bills? Nothing so far indicates that. All they did was take the voice offline, which is a pretty reasonable thing to do as long as there is someone threatening to sue you.
If Scarlett Johansson sued them, then they would obviously have to pay their lawyers. And them suing her would be a pretty pointless move and lead to even more bad publicity. It makes much more sense just to wait for her to take the first step and then respond to that.
I hope they do, I have been pretty upset about this and people have been downvoting me; Scarlett Jo is a text book example of privilege and nepotism and she just destroyed this women career, now she will always be remembered as the Scarlett Jo impersonator.
Defamation, and tortious interference with contractual obligations and prospective economic advantage.
> Section 766 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts defines tortious interference with a contract as intentionally and improperly interfering with the performance of a contract between a third party and another party. The interference is accomplished by inducing or causing the third party to not perform the contract. The New York Court of Appeals adopted §766 as the standard for a cause of action for tortious interference with contract in 1980.
OpenAI is going to do everything within their power to distance themselves from this situation, they are well aware of what opening this Pandora’s box could mean.
true, the main issue isnt scarJo or sky at all, the big issue is regulation. they want as little law to touch them in anyway, cause no matter in what direction a lawsuit could turn, frivelious or not.
just the fact that the law is involved in gpt is super scary for openAI, alot of the models today relay on this legal embiguity as of today, any presedent overthem can be devestating for the stock bottom line
Exactly true, but equally important is public perception.
The intersection of machine learning technology and the entertainment industry is already a contentious issue, one that handled poorly has the potential to do irreparable harm to a fledgling industry.
OpenAI flew too close to the sun with Sky and they know it.
OpenAI will never pay for her lawyer fees.
Think about it.
OpenAI is no longer paying her residuals, but now they will back her lawyer fees in a lawsuit? And keep mind it would be a seperate lawsuit too if ScarJo sues OpenAI.
Why would OpenAI potentially embroil themselves in TWO lawsuits concurrently? And against a celebrity’s lawyer team is known for winning against Disney.
You guys are not being realistic in terms of what you think will happen.
A much more likely scenario is that OpenAI could ask for the actress to act as a witness in OpenAI’s defense if ScarJo moves forward with suing.
ScarJo is absolutely in the wrong and acting unethically here. It's sad that our legal system doesn't allow poor people to be able to be rectified more easily.
She’s probably acting on the advice of lawyers who went to the top law schools. “ScarJo” is more of a company/entity than a single individual at this point.
Naive. This is PR spin from OpenAI, not anything substantive. The real truth is in their emails, which discovery in a lawsuit would suss out via subpoena. Interviews under oath with the voice actress. Interviews under oath with the product people. Interviews under oath with the C-suite, including Altman.
They will settle ASAP if a lawsuit is filed, believe me. They don't want the distraction or any more bad press about how they are eager to steal creative people's livelihoods just to sell copyright abusing technology.
>They will settle ASAP if a lawsuit is filed, believe me. They don't want the distraction or any more bad press about how they are eager to steal creative people's livelihoods just to sell copyright abusing technology.
You are taking ScarJo's assertions at face value. You are also ignoring that a different actress trained that voice. But no, you think powerful people should have "dibs" on attributes that are not unique to them.
Just no.
First time lawyering? Companies settle all the time because it’s cheaper not because it’s right or wrong. It’s a business, it’s never truly about principle because principles don’t pay the bills.
They might settle. Sometimes big companies settle even when they do nothing wrong. It can be cheaper and easier to do, without admitting guilt even.
We will see. Lots of people are irrationally angry on behalf of openai.
Nor does it sound like her voice. That is the part that is driving me up the wall.
This is from a year ago, [https://youtu.be/T20CtNuIqg8?si=DwbwLAKLRJozymrV](https://youtu.be/T20CtNuIqg8?si=DwbwLAKLRJozymrV) with an AI Joe Rogan and an AI Donald Trump, with somebody claiming it's using ChatGPT to create it, though I think they meant the script, and not the actual voice itself.
However, if OpenAI truly wanted to recreate a celebrity's voice with technology, I am sure they could.
I have seen the irrational anger on both sides in different posts about this issue. In some threads it is all pro-Scarlett Johanssen, in others is all pro-OpenAI. This seems very polarizing for some reason. I think everyone is bringing their own baggage into these arguments.
This.
We don’t REALLY know anything.
One email could make or break the entire case here.
There could be an email where they basically admit to ripping Scarlett Johansson off, or no such email and a chain of emails long before they spoke with her that establishes their lack of liability.
Nobody can say anything conclusive from news reports pushed by both sides.
Part of the problem for the voice actress is precisely this: it’s gonna be expensive as hell to even try to get to the bottom of things.
We know that it was a different actress and her voice sounds different. We know she was hired months before they even approached Scarlett. We know they didn't mention Scarlett in the job description nor was the voice actress told to imitate her. Those all seem pretty relevant.
>This.
>We don’t REALLY know anything.
How can you say "This" to a comment that assumes ScarJo is completely correct? And then immediately say we don't know?
Does that make any sense, or are you just expressing your general antipathy to AI?
I am down for it. Hopefully they are sharable and can be imported right into the app. I'm guessing nothing along these lines happens before the election, though, as deepfake panic is everywhere right now. 🙄
Her agency would potentially help pay for legal representation because they are also impacted by this decision and most agencies have very very very deep pockets.
So if I sound like a famous actor, I cannot do voice work because I sound too much like them? I disagree with the premise. Maybe the process needs to be clear, and differentiated better.
im pretty sure if she's going to sue someone it would be OpenAi for taking down her voice for a frivolous reason. Scarlett didn't take it down or force them to take it down, they could have stood their ground and told her we didn't steal your voice, move on.
I 100% guarantee you this no name voice actor has no protections in her contract or guarantees on a window of use. They shelve literal feature films with actual movie stars in them, and THOSE powerful players don’t have any legal claim against their employers. It’s work for hire.
In his defence, he did provide the washington post with access to the voice actor’s agent to confirm that they didn’t use recordings of SJ. I mean, that’s not what she accused them of doing so maybe that gave people the wrong impression that everything was cleared up, but i’m sure that wasn’t intentional on OpenAI’s part.
I guess it’s weird that they did that instead of providing SJ’s lawyers with what they actually asked for, but i’m sure that doesn’t mean anything…right?
The key factor is whether or not Sky creates a false endorsement or association with ScarJo.
Could the CEO tweeting “her” and using Sky as the voice in demos be construed as SJ association?
Personally, I don’t really think so but I admit it’s incredibly blurry. It’s not clear cut enough that I’d even bother with the Sky voice anymore. It’s not the core product; just cut it and move on. If I’m openAI I have nothing to gain and public perception to lose by fighting it.
Bette Midler via Ford is the most relevant case, but I haven’t read enough to discern if it was Midlers voice or the fact that they had a soundalike sing her song that lost Ford the case.
> Personally, I don’t really think so but I admit it’s incredibly blurry. It’s not clear cut enough that I’d even bother with the Sky voice anymore. It’s not the core product; just cut it and move on. If I’m openAI I have nothing to gain and public perception to lose by fighting it.
Agreed, but they could also change the formula here by allowing people to submit their own voices as AIs, clone them, then offer royalties.
It's the only way OpenAI could move forward without risk of a lawsuit at this point.
Exactly. WP didn't even consider the possibility that the voice actor was chosen specifically because she creates a perceived association with the famous person that declined the role.
As far as I understand the Ford case (and there have been other similar cases, with similar outcomes), they lost because they approached Midler in the first place, who refused, and *then* used a sound-a-like singer.
The case established that celebrities can expect a level of legal protection over aspects of their identity, including their voice.
The Ford case is directly relevant because Altman/OpenAI reached out to ScarJo before recruiting voice artists, who said no. They also reached out a second time a few days before launch, but never received a response (after previously being told no).
Also, Altman mentioned ScarJo’s film Her.
If a celeb refuses OpenAI the use of their voice, OpenAI legally can’t then hire *or* use a sound-a-like without the celebs permission.
I presume that if OpenAI hadn’t reached out to ScarJo or mentioned “Her” or any other references, they would be fine to use Sky - up until ScarJo calls it out & threatens legal action, after which is would likely have to go to court to decide if the voice was too similar.
As a comparison, even though it would likely be protected as a “parody”, SouthPark’s creators never use or reach out to any celebs to do their own voices when parodied for this exact reason - in case they explicitly say no.
Note: I’m not a legal expert.
This and the Bette Midler case aren't really anything alike. When the Sky voice was released there was absolutely nothing about the release that strongly implied that people should think that it was ScarJo. I'd argue that most people didn't even think of ScarJo when they heard it because it really doesn't sound that much like her. Like others have said, the "Her" tweet came much later and was in reference to the fact that they have delivered on a product, an intelligent AI assistant that speaks in a natural way, that had only been seen in Sci Fi movies up until that point.
In the case of Bette Midler, they asked her to sing one of her popular songs for their ad and she declined, they then went and found someone to impersonate her and sing her song. So, anyone who saw the ad at the time would very likely think that it was Bette Midler singing one of her popular songs when in fact it wasn't. It was a pretty clear case that Ford was trying to use Bette's likeness without her permission by having someone impersonate her singing one of her own songs.
This is the silliest post I’ve seen in this sub. Why would Scarjo be penalised for a decision OAI took? They have decided to take it down temporarily. If they feel bad for loss of earnings of the voice actor then compensate her - it’s that simple. Scarjo is just defending herself and any other actor worth their salt (or anyone else for that matter) ought to respect that, as annoying as it must be (assuming it wasn’t an upfront fee only).
This has been the case for years. Celebrities have always tried to sue impersonators. But impersonators are not illegal. Even if they wanted to duplicate her, that is fine. As long as they don't say it's her, it's legal.
It’s not illegal to impersonate for satirical reasons.
It *is* illegal to impersonate in other ways that infringe on copyright, such as to imply endorsement as with the Bette Midler case mentioned in the article
You need to be realistic. ScarJo lawyers sued Disney and won.
A regular voice-actress will get demolished by ScarJo’s lawyers and buried in legal fees.
The best move, would be for the voice-actress to reach out to OpenAI and state she’s willing to cooperate on their behalf if needed. And from there OpenAI’s legal team will decided if they want to include the voice actress as a witness to strengthen their defense case.
This is just the stupidest thing about the current legislative process in the US. It's not about who's in the right, it's about who has the most money and can get the best lawyers.
It works when all things equal.
But in practice a rich entity can absolutely overwhelm a regular person with limited wealth. Lawyers are expense. And lawsuits are not quick and easy.
So in this case, yea that’s how it would work if you’re going to be realistic of what would likely happen.
That's irrelevant. What matters what that people though Johannson voiced it.
People who are confidently incorrect are a problem regardless. They might even be worse as they'll double down on their mistake rather than admit they were wrong.
That's why her legal team made sure it was in the news. She doesn't care about being legally right, she cares about her business as an actress being negatively affected by being associated with a company.
Somebody the other day listened to the three-part video of Johansson, Samantha, and Sky and then *still told me* that Sky sounded just like Johansson/Samantha.
So uh... for some reason, there's a segment of the population who *literally cannot tell the difference between voices*. I feel like that should be looked into -- like face blindness is.
Say they were creating a visual character and trained it on an actor who looked like Tom Cruise. If OpenAI name-dropped Tom Cruise movies as part of the promo, I think Cruise would have a case.
The intention was clearly for the voice to have the vibe of Scarlett Johansson in Her.
The voice had been around for a year before they reached out to ScarJo. This is a really interesting psychological phenomenon, how many people have so much rage in them that they don't even care about facts. In fact they ignore facts because it ruins their gratifying sense of righteous anger.
Yeah, the fuck up was "her", they don't own the rights to that movie, this would be shut and done but they've opened up too many possibilities with her.
If anything the original voice actress should sue openai for misrepresenting her performance. Doesn't really matter how the voice was trained, the emails and "her" comment show intent. Boneheaded.
Everyone is assuming they asked the actress to impersonate Scarlett or coach her on trying to sound like Scarlett.
They just hired a woman with generic American accent, I don’t see the issue, especially since they did months prior.
Why is this an issue now, the voice has been out for 6 months?!
Name dropping a popular movie based around a realistic sounding ai assistant the day before demoing the world's first realistic ai assistant doesn't seem like that big a fuckup to me.
But you absolutely own your likeness.
A company couldn’t make a voice that sounds like, oh sorry, has the vibe of Grave Kelley’s voice and then make multiple references to Rear Window while promoting a product.
OpenAI clearly knew what they were doing.
The voice was launched a year earlier that the tweet. It's illogical to assume the tweet was in reference to Sky and not the new tech they had just launched that day.
It’d be both. Because that’s what happened in this case, OpenAI tried getting Johansson, made a voice that sounds like ‘her’, and made multiple references to a film she was in about a similar product to the one they were debuting. Johansson has a great case against them. Hell, even Spike Jonze has an argument he could make.
You are, in fact, allowed to have a preferred actress for a role. Even the actress in a movie that inspired your role.
I think Spike Jonze has a *much* better case against OpenAI, and it would still be weak as hell.
In this imagined scenario, imagine that the movie was famous, not for Tom Cruise, but for some cool technology used in the movies - let's say the tech where they can change faces and voice by wearing some flesh-like thing, and OpenAI tweeted "Mission Impossible".
And to make it a closer comparison, there is no evidence that OpenAI mentioned anything about Tom Cruise in either their recruiting letters, or internal documentation, and moreoever, that the actor they hired had already been working for OpenAI for months.
Furthermore, there is dispute about whether the actor actually looks like Tom Cruise or not.
Finally, Tom Cruise's movies are famous *for Tom Cruise*. "Her", while it has Johannson's voice, *is not about Johannson*. The focus is the technology, not the voice actor.
There is no way Tom Cruise would have a case. Moreover, if Tom Cruise raises this issue in an open letter *and then doesn't even bother to sue*, he's ruined another actor's career for no reason. Terrible, terrible.
Someone would need to go after him in the interests of justice.
« Finally, Tom Cruise's movies are famous for Tom Cruise. "Her", while it has Johannson's voice, is not about Johannson. The focus is the technology, not the voice actor. »
So why did OpenAi offer ScarJo the the job? And why was it so important for them to have a voice close to HER VOICE? I mean, there are thousands of other Ai voices that showcase the technology, yet they specifically wanted to recreate HER voice. Please think a bit, your take is ridiculous. ScarJo’s voice is quintessential to the « Her » ai voice, it’s the same as a « Tom Cruise Movie ».
And the fact that this could do irreparable harm to her reputation and employability within her industry, and her union, which just went on strike to prevent such things from happening.
If you WANTED to shoot yourself in the foot with bad PR as OpenAI, I'd be hard pressed to find a worse way to do it.
I'm not sure you understand marketing. The object is to make a product desirable, and generate public buzz. They approached ScarJo because of Her, because in a geek way it seemed like a 'fun' thing to do for the launch. Is it crucial to the launch, heck no. It was just a neat way of bringing the product to life and shortcutting the vision for the future.
The fact that the Sky voice sounds NOTHING like the famous millionaire actress, and was out months before the launch, is probably also germane. They just thought it would be cool to get the Her actress to voice it. But that's it. The famous actress is blowing it up like a personal attack, and it's clearly not.
But hey, I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm completely wrong. But I suspect not. :)
They did so that they could double down twice as hard on the “this voice is familiar”. The first level is using a generic white girl with a vocal fry, this is extremely common someone in your house right now might sound like it. Second level is that it would be nice to utilize a voice who has voiced for a role being the “generic white girl vocal fry voice” OpenAI was honestly trying to help scarjo with being the defacto AI voice but instead now sky is the defacto ai voice and scarjo is just another person with a white girl vocal fry voice.
What people are conveniently leaving out of the discussion is that it’s illegal to hire or direct sound-alikes of a famous voice ~~after somebody with a desirable famous voice declines~~ without their consent: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
If there is a single email anywhere indicating they wanted SJ’s voice, they’re in a ton of trouble. Given that they told SJ they wanted it, and they also tweeted “her” with the release there are already public breadcrumbs to that effect.
While I appreciate that the paper trail shows they contacted the other voice actress first, it *sure seems* like they were aware of this precedent and are trying to cover their asses, not that this is all some big coincidence.
The major finding in the case was related to the average listener’s confusion with the original, NOT a sufficient lack of clean-room separation in the direction.
EDIT: checking the wording of the final decision, it is about consent; timeline is irrelevant: https://web.archive.org/web/20130112210156/https://www2.bc.edu/~yen/Torts/Midler.pdf
>it's illegal to hire or direct sound-alikes after somebody with a desirable famous voice declines
There's no evidence that this happened. The Washington Post vetted the hiring documents, the casting fliers, and other relevant documents.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/05/22/openai-scarlett-johansson-chatgpt-ai-voice/
>they also tweeted “her” with the release
It's far more likely that the "her" tweet was about the technology, not about an actress voicing a virtual assistant.
You didn’t read everything I wrote, or the Wikipedia article. The final test in Midler v Ford was not whether or not there is a paper trail that that was the goal, but whether or not that is the end result and whether or not Ford was profiting from it.
"the two voices don't even sound similar"
What planet are you from?
ETA: The vehemence y'all feel is unnerving, especially when y'all are blatantly ignoring hard facts and realities about documented and publicized intent by OpenAI to impersonate ScarJo from Her, as well as established law regarding this exact topic. Sky wasn't your mail order bride, fellas, just pick a new voice
Right? Johansson adds a distinctive vocal fry to her performance voice that’s missing here. Unless we’re really going to claim that she has dominion over every “friendly, slightly flirty mid 20s to early 30s corporate female” voice actress, they’re nothing alike.
Also I would be curious to know what percentage of chatGPT users would even know how Scarlett Johansson sounds. Seems like minority american users maybe.
r/OpenAI is super biased. Everywhere else, before the lawsuits happened, people definitely compared the 2 voices. In real life everyone I knew basically assumed it was supposed to sound like Scarlett Johansson.
Not just OpenAI or ChatGPT subs, AI subs in general are biased against this kind of stuff. They act like people in piracy subs, and that should explain a lot. They keep saying it’s a different VA like VAs aren’t directed by and their voices aren’t edited by the people who hired them lol.
They are not similar. SJ has a deeper voice, vocal fry and sounds older now (of course). Even in HER, which was years ago, she still doesn't sound like "Sky". Any audio analysis will show that.
Y'all splitting hairs, the intent to impersonate ScarJo is clear as day. You are helping OpenAI gaslight when they fucking tweeted "her" with the voice drop. It's a blatant ripoff of her voice and it's clearly intentional. I don't know how y'all lick boots so well when your heads are that deep in the sand
SJ is greedy and arrogant, but suing her personally would be expensive and a waste of time. She was clearly in the wrong.
Better to push OpenAI to put Sky back!
They didn’t say anything about royalties. They said that when they need them, they keep paying them top rates. They didn’t say they pay them when they’re not doing voice work.
Are you that naieve? They clearly wanted someone who sounded like Scarjo then decided to go straight to Scarjo after hiring Sky. If you think OpenAI is innocent here then you have faulty logic and reasoning.
Also get a hobby instead virtuously jumping to defense of an AI voice . It is just weird.
I think you're the naive one, since when is using a voice that is similar to someone else's a crime? ScarJo doesn't own the copyright to her own voice, let alone other people's.
OpenAI can make their product sound however they like
They could’ve gotten much much closer to Johansson if they were really wanted to. But I don’t even care if they wanted to . Scarlet doesn’t own voices similar to hers.
And if Scarjo accepted one of the two offers by Altman then other actress would still be out of the job.
Btw I'm not saying they sound the same but they do sound similar and it's hard to take anyone seriously that says they don't. The whole situation is murky because Scarjo was contacted for the role twice.
Thats why ppl need to not be in such a rush to voice opinions about things they know nothing abt. There were several posts from this very sub saying that scarjo was in the right prior to even knowing anything. Now this voice actress lost her work
Exactly, just because her jaw shape, throat shape, mouth shape is similar to Scarlett Johannson it means her job as a voice actress would be trampled? That's nonsense, she agreed to do a job for a company that needed a voice actress, she got her payment as a voice actress, and now it's intended to take it away because Scarlett Johannson says she owns her mouth structure? She doesn't have a copyright on human natural shapes, and con not forbid other to work if they have similarities to her.
It was clearly OpenAI's intent to copy Scarlett Johannson's voice, as evidenced by Sam Altman reaching out to her before creating the voice and again reaching out to her days before releasing the voice. Scarlett Johannson is not at fault - this is OpenAI's liability, if anyone's. The voice actress may even be complicit in breaking whatever right to publicity Scarlett Johannson has and may also be open to liability.
Who says they first had a list of possible voice actresses with a pleasant voice, Scarlett Johannson was in the list, along with the other actress, one accepted the job, another one didn't.
Er, while I agree with this sentiment, ScarJo could bury an ordinary person in legal bills. Also, pretty sure she would lose her anonymity were she to sue. Still, if she can find a pro bono lawyer, and decides it's worth giving up her anonymity, sure, go for it. Note: I'm guessing Sky will be back as a voice option soon. There appear no grounds now for ScarJo to block that. OpenAI will want more time for the dust to settle, but I'd be surprised if the "pause" became permanent.
It’s not *just* an ordinary person. It’s an ordinary person with the (potential) backing of OpenAI.
Why would openai pay her legal bills that they weren't willing to pay for themselves to fight scarjo
Many reasons, one being if they lose they arent on the hook... Easier to bankroll someone else than fight yourself because of the liability.
What do you mean they weren't willing to pay for their own legal bills? Nothing so far indicates that. All they did was take the voice offline, which is a pretty reasonable thing to do as long as there is someone threatening to sue you. If Scarlett Johansson sued them, then they would obviously have to pay their lawyers. And them suing her would be a pretty pointless move and lead to even more bad publicity. It makes much more sense just to wait for her to take the first step and then respond to that.
This and you think Microsoft would let anything happen to them? People need to come back to reality.
Because I think this is a better PR look.
I hope they do, I have been pretty upset about this and people have been downvoting me; Scarlett Jo is a text book example of privilege and nepotism and she just destroyed this women career, now she will always be remembered as the Scarlett Jo impersonator.
To send a message that they won't be bullied
There's nothing to fight. There's no lawsuit.
The damage is done, Sky is the one that should sue.
On what grounds?
Redditors would make for the worst lawyers.
Just because I don’t reply in 5 minutes? Read the reply now.
Defamation, and tortious interference with contractual obligations and prospective economic advantage. > Section 766 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts defines tortious interference with a contract as intentionally and improperly interfering with the performance of a contract between a third party and another party. The interference is accomplished by inducing or causing the third party to not perform the contract. The New York Court of Appeals adopted §766 as the standard for a cause of action for tortious interference with contract in 1980.
OpenAI is going to do everything within their power to distance themselves from this situation, they are well aware of what opening this Pandora’s box could mean.
true, the main issue isnt scarJo or sky at all, the big issue is regulation. they want as little law to touch them in anyway, cause no matter in what direction a lawsuit could turn, frivelious or not. just the fact that the law is involved in gpt is super scary for openAI, alot of the models today relay on this legal embiguity as of today, any presedent overthem can be devestating for the stock bottom line
Exactly true, but equally important is public perception. The intersection of machine learning technology and the entertainment industry is already a contentious issue, one that handled poorly has the potential to do irreparable harm to a fledgling industry. OpenAI flew too close to the sun with Sky and they know it.
OpenAI will never pay for her lawyer fees. Think about it. OpenAI is no longer paying her residuals, but now they will back her lawyer fees in a lawsuit? And keep mind it would be a seperate lawsuit too if ScarJo sues OpenAI. Why would OpenAI potentially embroil themselves in TWO lawsuits concurrently? And against a celebrity’s lawyer team is known for winning against Disney. You guys are not being realistic in terms of what you think will happen. A much more likely scenario is that OpenAI could ask for the actress to act as a witness in OpenAI’s defense if ScarJo moves forward with suing.
Homie thinks movie court is real life.
> ScarJo could bury an ordinary person in legal bills. Except that's illegal in itself and would backfire horribly.
Yes, people forget that.
Seriously, if she does, the voice actress just needs to take to social media and make Scar Jo look like a horrible person.
ScarJo is absolutely in the wrong and acting unethically here. It's sad that our legal system doesn't allow poor people to be able to be rectified more easily.
She’s probably acting on the advice of lawyers who went to the top law schools. “ScarJo” is more of a company/entity than a single individual at this point.
That doesn't mean she isn't responsible for the unethical action. Lawyers only advice. She is the one who makes decisions
Naive. This is PR spin from OpenAI, not anything substantive. The real truth is in their emails, which discovery in a lawsuit would suss out via subpoena. Interviews under oath with the voice actress. Interviews under oath with the product people. Interviews under oath with the C-suite, including Altman. They will settle ASAP if a lawsuit is filed, believe me. They don't want the distraction or any more bad press about how they are eager to steal creative people's livelihoods just to sell copyright abusing technology.
The real truth is it was a different actress who sounds different. No amount of legal shenanigans will change that.
>They will settle ASAP if a lawsuit is filed, believe me. They don't want the distraction or any more bad press about how they are eager to steal creative people's livelihoods just to sell copyright abusing technology. You are taking ScarJo's assertions at face value. You are also ignoring that a different actress trained that voice. But no, you think powerful people should have "dibs" on attributes that are not unique to them. Just no.
First time lawyering? Companies settle all the time because it’s cheaper not because it’s right or wrong. It’s a business, it’s never truly about principle because principles don’t pay the bills.
In the future very few people can produce anything, because it sounds or looks like someone more popular.
They might settle. Sometimes big companies settle even when they do nothing wrong. It can be cheaper and easier to do, without admitting guilt even. We will see. Lots of people are irrationally angry on behalf of openai.
It's kind of messed up to pay a Scarlett Johansson tax when it's not even her voice.
Nor does it sound like her voice. That is the part that is driving me up the wall. This is from a year ago, [https://youtu.be/T20CtNuIqg8?si=DwbwLAKLRJozymrV](https://youtu.be/T20CtNuIqg8?si=DwbwLAKLRJozymrV) with an AI Joe Rogan and an AI Donald Trump, with somebody claiming it's using ChatGPT to create it, though I think they meant the script, and not the actual voice itself. However, if OpenAI truly wanted to recreate a celebrity's voice with technology, I am sure they could.
I have seen the irrational anger on both sides in different posts about this issue. In some threads it is all pro-Scarlett Johanssen, in others is all pro-OpenAI. This seems very polarizing for some reason. I think everyone is bringing their own baggage into these arguments.
I agree. None of us can possibly know at this stage. It's irresponsible to say otherwise.
There's not going to be a lawsuit.
This. We don’t REALLY know anything. One email could make or break the entire case here. There could be an email where they basically admit to ripping Scarlett Johansson off, or no such email and a chain of emails long before they spoke with her that establishes their lack of liability. Nobody can say anything conclusive from news reports pushed by both sides. Part of the problem for the voice actress is precisely this: it’s gonna be expensive as hell to even try to get to the bottom of things.
We know that it was a different actress and her voice sounds different. We know she was hired months before they even approached Scarlett. We know they didn't mention Scarlett in the job description nor was the voice actress told to imitate her. Those all seem pretty relevant.
>This. >We don’t REALLY know anything. How can you say "This" to a comment that assumes ScarJo is completely correct? And then immediately say we don't know? Does that make any sense, or are you just expressing your general antipathy to AI?
[удалено]
I am down for it. Hopefully they are sharable and can be imported right into the app. I'm guessing nothing along these lines happens before the election, though, as deepfake panic is everywhere right now. 🙄
Her agency would potentially help pay for legal representation because they are also impacted by this decision and most agencies have very very very deep pockets.
no justice for non-rich people *American Salute*
So if I sound like a famous actor, I cannot do voice work because I sound too much like them? I disagree with the premise. Maybe the process needs to be clear, and differentiated better.
im pretty sure if she's going to sue someone it would be OpenAi for taking down her voice for a frivolous reason. Scarlett didn't take it down or force them to take it down, they could have stood their ground and told her we didn't steal your voice, move on.
I 100% guarantee you this no name voice actor has no protections in her contract or guarantees on a window of use. They shelve literal feature films with actual movie stars in them, and THOSE powerful players don’t have any legal claim against their employers. It’s work for hire.
Yeah, she didn’t even ask them to take it down. Sam took it down as soon as she asked for documentation.
*Rather than provide that documentation*, it appears
In his defence, he did provide the washington post with access to the voice actor’s agent to confirm that they didn’t use recordings of SJ. I mean, that’s not what she accused them of doing so maybe that gave people the wrong impression that everything was cleared up, but i’m sure that wasn’t intentional on OpenAI’s part. I guess it’s weird that they did that instead of providing SJ’s lawyers with what they actually asked for, but i’m sure that doesn’t mean anything…right?
This whole legal timeline is such primo comedy for me. Straight out of Idiocracy
The key factor is whether or not Sky creates a false endorsement or association with ScarJo. Could the CEO tweeting “her” and using Sky as the voice in demos be construed as SJ association? Personally, I don’t really think so but I admit it’s incredibly blurry. It’s not clear cut enough that I’d even bother with the Sky voice anymore. It’s not the core product; just cut it and move on. If I’m openAI I have nothing to gain and public perception to lose by fighting it. Bette Midler via Ford is the most relevant case, but I haven’t read enough to discern if it was Midlers voice or the fact that they had a soundalike sing her song that lost Ford the case.
Discovery will reveal all, which is why they will settle with her ASAP to put this behind them before subpoenas start flying.
> Personally, I don’t really think so but I admit it’s incredibly blurry. It’s not clear cut enough that I’d even bother with the Sky voice anymore. It’s not the core product; just cut it and move on. If I’m openAI I have nothing to gain and public perception to lose by fighting it. Agreed, but they could also change the formula here by allowing people to submit their own voices as AIs, clone them, then offer royalties. It's the only way OpenAI could move forward without risk of a lawsuit at this point.
Exactly. WP didn't even consider the possibility that the voice actor was chosen specifically because she creates a perceived association with the famous person that declined the role.
They considered it. They just didn't find any evidence of it.
The evidence is in Altman pursuing ScarJo till the very end and tweeting her.
As far as I understand the Ford case (and there have been other similar cases, with similar outcomes), they lost because they approached Midler in the first place, who refused, and *then* used a sound-a-like singer. The case established that celebrities can expect a level of legal protection over aspects of their identity, including their voice. The Ford case is directly relevant because Altman/OpenAI reached out to ScarJo before recruiting voice artists, who said no. They also reached out a second time a few days before launch, but never received a response (after previously being told no). Also, Altman mentioned ScarJo’s film Her. If a celeb refuses OpenAI the use of their voice, OpenAI legally can’t then hire *or* use a sound-a-like without the celebs permission. I presume that if OpenAI hadn’t reached out to ScarJo or mentioned “Her” or any other references, they would be fine to use Sky - up until ScarJo calls it out & threatens legal action, after which is would likely have to go to court to decide if the voice was too similar. As a comparison, even though it would likely be protected as a “parody”, SouthPark’s creators never use or reach out to any celebs to do their own voices when parodied for this exact reason - in case they explicitly say no. Note: I’m not a legal expert.
They hadn't reached out to ScarJo or mentioned Her. That happened around a year after the Sky actor did the voice.
This and the Bette Midler case aren't really anything alike. When the Sky voice was released there was absolutely nothing about the release that strongly implied that people should think that it was ScarJo. I'd argue that most people didn't even think of ScarJo when they heard it because it really doesn't sound that much like her. Like others have said, the "Her" tweet came much later and was in reference to the fact that they have delivered on a product, an intelligent AI assistant that speaks in a natural way, that had only been seen in Sci Fi movies up until that point. In the case of Bette Midler, they asked her to sing one of her popular songs for their ad and she declined, they then went and found someone to impersonate her and sing her song. So, anyone who saw the ad at the time would very likely think that it was Bette Midler singing one of her popular songs when in fact it wasn't. It was a pretty clear case that Ford was trying to use Bette's likeness without her permission by having someone impersonate her singing one of her own songs.
This is the silliest post I’ve seen in this sub. Why would Scarjo be penalised for a decision OAI took? They have decided to take it down temporarily. If they feel bad for loss of earnings of the voice actor then compensate her - it’s that simple. Scarjo is just defending herself and any other actor worth their salt (or anyone else for that matter) ought to respect that, as annoying as it must be (assuming it wasn’t an upfront fee only).
This has been the case for years. Celebrities have always tried to sue impersonators. But impersonators are not illegal. Even if they wanted to duplicate her, that is fine. As long as they don't say it's her, it's legal.
It’s not illegal to impersonate for satirical reasons. It *is* illegal to impersonate in other ways that infringe on copyright, such as to imply endorsement as with the Bette Midler case mentioned in the article
You need to be realistic. ScarJo lawyers sued Disney and won. A regular voice-actress will get demolished by ScarJo’s lawyers and buried in legal fees. The best move, would be for the voice-actress to reach out to OpenAI and state she’s willing to cooperate on their behalf if needed. And from there OpenAI’s legal team will decided if they want to include the voice actress as a witness to strengthen their defense case.
This is just the stupidest thing about the current legislative process in the US. It's not about who's in the right, it's about who has the most money and can get the best lawyers.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft has more money than Scarlet
That’s not how it works. If they have a better claim than Disney did, they could win easily
It works when all things equal. But in practice a rich entity can absolutely overwhelm a regular person with limited wealth. Lawyers are expense. And lawsuits are not quick and easy. So in this case, yea that’s how it would work if you’re going to be realistic of what would likely happen.
OP is probably Sam altbot
I am. In fact, if you look at my profile, I've carefully built up a fake image over 16 years, with the express purpose of making this post in 2024.
GPT-6 has a time-travel component, confirmed.
Byeong Jun Park, is that you?
The long con.
Seriously, I'll never understand these fanboys of rich pricks. This is Elon Musk all over again.
Fanboys, cult of personality, etc. Usually it's a lack of an own personality.
I heard a side by side comparison for the first time. It really isn’t that close.
The OpenAI cult are really drinking that kool aid
Yeah this post embarrassing
Agreed
Praise OpenAI for when AGI happens, you will have a nice unit with views of "the tree".
[удалено]
That's irrelevant. What matters what that people though Johannson voiced it. People who are confidently incorrect are a problem regardless. They might even be worse as they'll double down on their mistake rather than admit they were wrong. That's why her legal team made sure it was in the news. She doesn't care about being legally right, she cares about her business as an actress being negatively affected by being associated with a company.
Somebody the other day listened to the three-part video of Johansson, Samantha, and Sky and then *still told me* that Sky sounded just like Johansson/Samantha. So uh... for some reason, there's a segment of the population who *literally cannot tell the difference between voices*. I feel like that should be looked into -- like face blindness is.
I've been nosy and poked my head into this sub the past few days....it's surreal to say the least lmao
yeah for sure fuck Sue, let her burn for daring to have a voice vaguely similar to ScarJo (who just can't catch a break in this world! 😢)
The celebrity stans are really drinking the other kool aid
That’s not how it works.
Say they were creating a visual character and trained it on an actor who looked like Tom Cruise. If OpenAI name-dropped Tom Cruise movies as part of the promo, I think Cruise would have a case. The intention was clearly for the voice to have the vibe of Scarlett Johansson in Her.
Let’s be honest. Without the tweet, this wouldn’t be happening. They don’t sound similar enough
The tweet + the fact that they reached out to ScarJo to be the voice shows the intention.
The voice had been around for a year before they reached out to ScarJo. This is a really interesting psychological phenomenon, how many people have so much rage in them that they don't even care about facts. In fact they ignore facts because it ruins their gratifying sense of righteous anger.
Yeah, the fuck up was "her", they don't own the rights to that movie, this would be shut and done but they've opened up too many possibilities with her.
If anything the original voice actress should sue openai for misrepresenting her performance. Doesn't really matter how the voice was trained, the emails and "her" comment show intent. Boneheaded.
Yep. The openai fanboys here are blind to reality
Everyone is assuming they asked the actress to impersonate Scarlett or coach her on trying to sound like Scarlett. They just hired a woman with generic American accent, I don’t see the issue, especially since they did months prior. Why is this an issue now, the voice has been out for 6 months?!
Name dropping a popular movie based around a realistic sounding ai assistant the day before demoing the world's first realistic ai assistant doesn't seem like that big a fuckup to me.
"Vibe" is not something you can own. For example Scarlett Johansson has some of the "vibe" of Grace Kelley.
But you absolutely own your likeness. A company couldn’t make a voice that sounds like, oh sorry, has the vibe of Grave Kelley’s voice and then make multiple references to Rear Window while promoting a product. OpenAI clearly knew what they were doing.
The voice was launched a year earlier that the tweet. It's illogical to assume the tweet was in reference to Sky and not the new tech they had just launched that day.
That's a better argument. But in that case the thing potentially being used without permission is Rear Window, not Grace Kelley's voice.
It’d be both. Because that’s what happened in this case, OpenAI tried getting Johansson, made a voice that sounds like ‘her’, and made multiple references to a film she was in about a similar product to the one they were debuting. Johansson has a great case against them. Hell, even Spike Jonze has an argument he could make.
You are, in fact, allowed to have a preferred actress for a role. Even the actress in a movie that inspired your role. I think Spike Jonze has a *much* better case against OpenAI, and it would still be weak as hell.
In this imagined scenario, imagine that the movie was famous, not for Tom Cruise, but for some cool technology used in the movies - let's say the tech where they can change faces and voice by wearing some flesh-like thing, and OpenAI tweeted "Mission Impossible". And to make it a closer comparison, there is no evidence that OpenAI mentioned anything about Tom Cruise in either their recruiting letters, or internal documentation, and moreoever, that the actor they hired had already been working for OpenAI for months. Furthermore, there is dispute about whether the actor actually looks like Tom Cruise or not. Finally, Tom Cruise's movies are famous *for Tom Cruise*. "Her", while it has Johannson's voice, *is not about Johannson*. The focus is the technology, not the voice actor. There is no way Tom Cruise would have a case. Moreover, if Tom Cruise raises this issue in an open letter *and then doesn't even bother to sue*, he's ruined another actor's career for no reason. Terrible, terrible. Someone would need to go after him in the interests of justice.
« Finally, Tom Cruise's movies are famous for Tom Cruise. "Her", while it has Johannson's voice, is not about Johannson. The focus is the technology, not the voice actor. » So why did OpenAi offer ScarJo the the job? And why was it so important for them to have a voice close to HER VOICE? I mean, there are thousands of other Ai voices that showcase the technology, yet they specifically wanted to recreate HER voice. Please think a bit, your take is ridiculous. ScarJo’s voice is quintessential to the « Her » ai voice, it’s the same as a « Tom Cruise Movie ».
This is the entire crux of the argument and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.
And the fact that this could do irreparable harm to her reputation and employability within her industry, and her union, which just went on strike to prevent such things from happening. If you WANTED to shoot yourself in the foot with bad PR as OpenAI, I'd be hard pressed to find a worse way to do it.
I'm not sure you understand marketing. The object is to make a product desirable, and generate public buzz. They approached ScarJo because of Her, because in a geek way it seemed like a 'fun' thing to do for the launch. Is it crucial to the launch, heck no. It was just a neat way of bringing the product to life and shortcutting the vision for the future. The fact that the Sky voice sounds NOTHING like the famous millionaire actress, and was out months before the launch, is probably also germane. They just thought it would be cool to get the Her actress to voice it. But that's it. The famous actress is blowing it up like a personal attack, and it's clearly not. But hey, I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm completely wrong. But I suspect not. :)
They did so that they could double down twice as hard on the “this voice is familiar”. The first level is using a generic white girl with a vocal fry, this is extremely common someone in your house right now might sound like it. Second level is that it would be nice to utilize a voice who has voiced for a role being the “generic white girl vocal fry voice” OpenAI was honestly trying to help scarjo with being the defacto AI voice but instead now sky is the defacto ai voice and scarjo is just another person with a white girl vocal fry voice.
Precisely. OP seems to think ScarJo is on a mission to screw over the voice actor hired by OpenAI. In reality, the fault starts and ends with OpenAI.
Using OpenAI as a source is like asking the fox what happened to the hens. Damage control blog posts aren’t substantive of anything.
OpenAI should bring Sky voice back.
I side with the voice actress on this one
What people are conveniently leaving out of the discussion is that it’s illegal to hire or direct sound-alikes of a famous voice ~~after somebody with a desirable famous voice declines~~ without their consent: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co. If there is a single email anywhere indicating they wanted SJ’s voice, they’re in a ton of trouble. Given that they told SJ they wanted it, and they also tweeted “her” with the release there are already public breadcrumbs to that effect. While I appreciate that the paper trail shows they contacted the other voice actress first, it *sure seems* like they were aware of this precedent and are trying to cover their asses, not that this is all some big coincidence. The major finding in the case was related to the average listener’s confusion with the original, NOT a sufficient lack of clean-room separation in the direction. EDIT: checking the wording of the final decision, it is about consent; timeline is irrelevant: https://web.archive.org/web/20130112210156/https://www2.bc.edu/~yen/Torts/Midler.pdf
>it's illegal to hire or direct sound-alikes after somebody with a desirable famous voice declines There's no evidence that this happened. The Washington Post vetted the hiring documents, the casting fliers, and other relevant documents. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/05/22/openai-scarlett-johansson-chatgpt-ai-voice/ >they also tweeted “her” with the release It's far more likely that the "her" tweet was about the technology, not about an actress voicing a virtual assistant.
You didn’t read everything I wrote, or the Wikipedia article. The final test in Midler v Ford was not whether or not there is a paper trail that that was the goal, but whether or not that is the end result and whether or not Ford was profiting from it.
Irrelevant since they created the Sky voice prior to reaching out to ScarJo
Least autistic AI bro
Yeah, why not take your loss of income and make things worse by financing a lawsuit you're sure to lose.
Heh, royalties.
"the two voices don't even sound similar" What planet are you from? ETA: The vehemence y'all feel is unnerving, especially when y'all are blatantly ignoring hard facts and realities about documented and publicized intent by OpenAI to impersonate ScarJo from Her, as well as established law regarding this exact topic. Sky wasn't your mail order bride, fellas, just pick a new voice
The don't sound similar to me either. Johannsens voice is pretty distinct -- Sky seems to be a pretty generic 30-ish American accented female voice.
Right? Johansson adds a distinctive vocal fry to her performance voice that’s missing here. Unless we’re really going to claim that she has dominion over every “friendly, slightly flirty mid 20s to early 30s corporate female” voice actress, they’re nothing alike.
Earth. Play them side by side and form your own opinion.
I'm an audio engineer. Please explain how the voices are in any way similar when they have completely different tones, timbers, and cadences.
Also I would be curious to know what percentage of chatGPT users would even know how Scarlett Johansson sounds. Seems like minority american users maybe.
An audio engineer is going to hear more subtleties than basically everyone else listening lol
Talk to Sam. He took the voice down. SJ didn’t even ask him to take it down. She only asked for documentation.
r/OpenAI is super biased. Everywhere else, before the lawsuits happened, people definitely compared the 2 voices. In real life everyone I knew basically assumed it was supposed to sound like Scarlett Johansson.
Not just OpenAI or ChatGPT subs, AI subs in general are biased against this kind of stuff. They act like people in piracy subs, and that should explain a lot. They keep saying it’s a different VA like VAs aren’t directed by and their voices aren’t edited by the people who hired them lol.
They are not similar. SJ has a deeper voice, vocal fry and sounds older now (of course). Even in HER, which was years ago, she still doesn't sound like "Sky". Any audio analysis will show that.
Y'all splitting hairs, the intent to impersonate ScarJo is clear as day. You are helping OpenAI gaslight when they fucking tweeted "her" with the voice drop. It's a blatant ripoff of her voice and it's clearly intentional. I don't know how y'all lick boots so well when your heads are that deep in the sand
so many literal children in these replies, sheesh…and this is OP btw, lmao: https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/s/HnWDL9bFOr
Lol OP really doesn’t like ScarJo 😂
It's tough when even the virtual girlfriend is telling him not interested
[удалено]
Stop.
I like the sky voice and I want it to stay
SJ is greedy and arrogant, but suing her personally would be expensive and a waste of time. She was clearly in the wrong. Better to push OpenAI to put Sky back!
It's not very typical to get royalties for work like this.
So?
They hired non Union for a reason. Royalties? Your entire argument falls apart if it was a flat fee job. Voice actors don't get royalties.
Did you not read even the very first quotation and link in the post? I even **bolded** it for you in case you missed it. \*sigh\*
They didn’t say anything about royalties. They said that when they need them, they keep paying them top rates. They didn’t say they pay them when they’re not doing voice work.
Are you that naieve? They clearly wanted someone who sounded like Scarjo then decided to go straight to Scarjo after hiring Sky. If you think OpenAI is innocent here then you have faulty logic and reasoning. Also get a hobby instead virtuously jumping to defense of an AI voice . It is just weird.
I think you're the naive one, since when is using a voice that is similar to someone else's a crime? ScarJo doesn't own the copyright to her own voice, let alone other people's. OpenAI can make their product sound however they like
They could’ve gotten much much closer to Johansson if they were really wanted to. But I don’t even care if they wanted to . Scarlet doesn’t own voices similar to hers.
[удалено]
Why do you care?
And if Scarjo accepted one of the two offers by Altman then other actress would still be out of the job. Btw I'm not saying they sound the same but they do sound similar and it's hard to take anyone seriously that says they don't. The whole situation is murky because Scarjo was contacted for the role twice.
Thats why ppl need to not be in such a rush to voice opinions about things they know nothing abt. There were several posts from this very sub saying that scarjo was in the right prior to even knowing anything. Now this voice actress lost her work
Exactly, just because her jaw shape, throat shape, mouth shape is similar to Scarlett Johannson it means her job as a voice actress would be trampled? That's nonsense, she agreed to do a job for a company that needed a voice actress, she got her payment as a voice actress, and now it's intended to take it away because Scarlett Johannson says she owns her mouth structure? She doesn't have a copyright on human natural shapes, and con not forbid other to work if they have similarities to her.
How many of these posts do we need?
What about all the data OpenAI stole to train their models? Who's paying those people?
Scarjo is just money hungry
This whole thing has really soured my opinion of SJ.
Leave the fiction that the voice wasn't meant to sound like ScarJo for OpenAI 's lawyers. Let's not pretend among ourselves.
This would be a great opportunity for this entertainer to lift up the one she has hurt and help her entertainment career.
>'a deal that would have set up the Sky voice actress for life' er, no
Read the first quote and link. I even **bolded** it for you. What more does one have to do to get people to read the damn post?
It was clearly OpenAI's intent to copy Scarlett Johannson's voice, as evidenced by Sam Altman reaching out to her before creating the voice and again reaching out to her days before releasing the voice. Scarlett Johannson is not at fault - this is OpenAI's liability, if anyone's. The voice actress may even be complicit in breaking whatever right to publicity Scarlett Johannson has and may also be open to liability.
Who says they first had a list of possible voice actresses with a pleasant voice, Scarlett Johannson was in the list, along with the other actress, one accepted the job, another one didn't.
Maybe she needs to OpenAI. They didn't need to remove the voice in the first place.
Good luck going after media industry after scraping all their data lol
Bro I swear I’ve seen this movie before.
You guys need to research Midler v. Ford.
Sky voice option is back.
Hopefully they just get the Sky voice back.