• pixxelkick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    4 months ago

    I mean, that’s just how it has always worked, this isn’t actually special to AI.

    Tom Hanks does the voice for Woody in Toy Story movies, but, his brother Jim Hanks has a very similar voice, but since he isnt Tom Hanks he commands a lower salary.

    So many video games and whatnot use Jim’s voice for Woody instead to save a bunch of money, and/or because Tom is typically busy filming movies.

    This isn’t an abnormal situation, voice actors constantly have “sound alikes” that impersonate them and get paid literally because they sound similar.

    OpenAI clearly did this.

    It’s hilarious because normally fans are foaming at the mouth if a studio hires a new actor and they sound even a little bit different than the prior actor, and no one bats an eye at studios efforts to try really hard to find a new actor that sounds as close as possible.

    Scarlett declined the offer and now she’s malding that OpenAI went and found some other woman who sounds similar.

    Thems the breaks, that’s an incredibly common thing that happens in voice acting across the board in video games, tv shows, movies, you name it.

    OpenAI almost certainly would have won the court case if they were able to produce who they actually hired and said person could demo that their voice sounds the same as Gippity’s.

    If they did that, Scarlett wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in court, she cant sue someone for having a similar voice to her, lol.

    • Xhieron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      She sure can’t. Sounds like all OpenAI has to do is produce the voice actor they used.

      So where is she? …

      Right.

      • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Get real. They have made it like her deliberately. Not anybody “nearly alike”. They even admitted it.

      • Mango@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        4 months ago

        You gonna just sit there and act like they don’t have someone? They aren’t coming here to reply to your fuckin Lemmy comment.

          • Mango@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Guilty until proven innocent. I see you’re clearly about that fuckshit. An accusation does it all for you.

              • Mango@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                4 months ago

                Then neither do you, pedophile. Just prove to me you didn’t rape that little girl. Show me the proof and this will all go away.

                • norbert@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Oh is there someone claiming that? Have I been in talks with little girls? Did they refuse to do business with me at which point I claimed I magically had a different little girl that sounded exactly like the one I was trying to hire?

                  Oh, no? Nothing that would indicate my intentions? That’d be a really strange assumption for you to make and probably says more about you than me.

                  Now, if I’d openly stated what I wanted to do and then it mysteriously happened you’d be right to suspect something. Like what happened here.

                  It’s pretty weird for you to simp for some chucklefuck billionaire my dude. He’s not your friend, in fact he’s your enemy.

                  • Mango@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    I don’t give a damn about that billionaire. I just came out of jail because nobody bothered to fact check. Go fuck yourself you bloodthirsty pedophile!

            • potpotato@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Government administrations wanting to know the ingredients of how something is made isn’t exactly new.

        • Xhieron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          That’s flattering, but I was actually just expecting a press release. So where is it?

    • dwindling7373@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Yes but also no, the whole appeal is tied to her brand (her public image x the character HER), unlike Woody who is an original creation.

      It’s like doing a commercial using a lookalike dressed like the original guy and pretending that’s a completely different actor.

      • Glowstick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I agreed with op, then i read your astute response and now I don’t know which position is correct.

        Thinking it through as i type… If you photoshopped an image of Tom Hanks giving a thumbs up to your product, that would clearly be illegal, but if you hired an exact flawless lookalike impersonator of Tom Hanks and had him pose for a picture with a thumbs up to your product, would that be illegal? I think it might still be illegal, because you purposely hired a lookalike impersonator to gain the benefit of Tom Hanks’ brand.

        I think the law on AI should match what the law says about impersonators. If hiring an indistinguishable celebrity impersonator to use in media is legal, then ai soundalikes should be legal too, and vice versa.

        • lanolinoil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          when you get into these nitty gritty copyright/ip arguments you realize it’s all just a house of cards to make capital king and the main ism

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          I think what it comes down to is intention. Are you intending to mimic someone else’s likeness without that person’s permission? That’s wrong. But if you just like someone’s voice and want to use them, and they happen to have a similar likeness, that’s fine.

          Where OpenAI gloriously fucked up is asking Johansson first. If they hadn’t, they would have plausible deniability that they just liked the voice actor’s voice. If it reminds them of Johansson, that’s even fine. What’s wrong is that they specifically wanted her likeness, even after she turned them down.

      • Chee_Koala@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        I get that she is grappling with identity and it’s not a clear cut case, but if the precedent is set that similar voices (and I didn’t even think it was that similar in this case) are infringement, that would be a pretty big blow to commercial creativity projects.

        Maybe it’s more a brand problem than an infringement problem.

        • 0x0@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          That reminded me of Ice Ice Baby and the rip-off of Queen’s Under Pressure bass riff. Queen won i think.

          I don’t think this is the same thing though. They asked her, she said so, they went for her cute cousin instead… typical.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      The difference is that apparently they asked ScarJo first and she said no. When they ask Tom Hanks (or really his agent, I assume) the answer is “he’s too busy with movies, try Jim”.

          • gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Having a talking woman in your phone is not stealing Scarlet Johansson’s likeness, even if they sound somewhat similar. US copyright law is already ridiculous, and you want to make it even more bullshit?

            By that logic her role in Her was already stealing the voice actor for Siri’s likeness, and she should have sued for that too.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          If you don’t own your image what do you own?

          Also you know scale. There is a difference between an Elvis impersonation in Vegas vs a huge ass corporation.

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Well, in the “soundalike” situation you describe people were getting paid to voice things. Now it’s just an AI model that’s not getting paid and the people that made the model probably got paid even less than a soundalike voice actor would. It’s just more money going to the top.

    • athairmor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      Scarlett actually would have a good case if she can show the court that people think it’s her. Tom Waits won a case against Frito Lay for “voice misappropriation” when they had someone imitate his voice for a commercial.

    • PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Wouldn’t the difference here wrt Tom/Woody be that Tom had already played the role before so there is some expectation that a similar voice would be used for future versions of Woody if Tom wasn’t available?

      Serious question, I never thought about the point you made so now I’m curious.

    • Mango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah, and there are so very few people who have literally any physical traits that aren’t also present in a million others. You can’t exactly copyright that.