Technology

59605 readers

4225 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

1170

Scarlett Johansson denied OpenAI the right to use her voice. They used it anyway. (boingboing.net)

submitted 6 months ago by Wilshire@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

186 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 46 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (13 children)

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.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Not really an admition of guilt like the article makes it seem.

You don't need an admission of guilt to lose in court. The fact that they pursued her permission up until 2 days before the release, even after being assured the client did not wish for them to utilize her voice, is pretty damning.

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.

What's the difference between this and an AI releasing a Taylor Swift album? Does Taylor Swift deserve to own a whole spectrum of voice?

Voice acting is still an art, and artists deserve to be paid for their contributions. If she has performed an awfully in Her, would they still want to mimic her voice? If Her hadn't been made, would they have come up with the voice and personality out of the blue?

No, because it's art, and AI is just an advanced copying machine. Open AI is just the newest attempt to leverage artists and workers from their group bargaining power. It's the scab of the future, but with more carbon emissions.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

You don't need an admission of guilt to lose in court.

Currently even if they used voice clips to train a model on her voice it wouldn't be illegal. That isn't currently the case, since they say they used an other actress that sounds like her anyways.

Does Taylor Swift deserve to own a whole spectrum of voice?

No, just like she doesn't deserve to own the four chord progressions that make up her songs. If she did, she could literally sue half of all pop music.

This is why none of this is copyrightable. There are too many people that have similar voices and too many songs that use similar chord progressions.

Your fantasy where this empowers small time artists is just that, a fantasy. If we push and they come out with new laws that make these things copyrightable, you just end up with corporations owning all of it.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago

Currently even if they used voice clips to train a model on her voice it wouldn't be illegal.

I think that's currently the point of contention....

That isn't currently the case, since they say they used an other actress that sounds like her anyways.

That's what they're claiming, but it's not like open AI doesn't have a pretty well documented history of lying.

No! Just like she doesn't deserve to own the four chord progressions that make up her songs.

There's a difference between common chord progressions and plagiarizing someone's voice and performance. You are the only person conflating the two.

This is why none of this is copyrightable. There are two many people that have similar voices

I think their intent is pretty clear. They didn't want a similar voice, they wanted her voice. After failing at getting her consent, they proceeded anyways.

and too many songs that use similar chord progressions.

There's actual precedent on how similar songs can be to each other without giving credit. Simple chord progressions aren't copyrightable, but how those chord progressions are performed are.

Your fantasy where this empowers small time artists is just that, a fantasy.

Lol, if they are able to plagiarize art from millionaires, what's the chance there's going to be any kind of protections for small artist?

If we push and they come out with new laws that make these things copyrightable, you just end up with corporations owning all of it.

We don't have to come out with laws banning chord progressions, that's just a strawman argument you erected yourself. We just need to apply the laws we currently have to AI companies. If Sony had tried to get her to dress like black widow and do a commercial and she refused. And if they then proceeded to hire an actress who looked like her, dressed the actress in a black skin tight suit, and gave her a red wig..... We'd be dealing with a hefty lawsuit, even if they claimed it wasn't supposed to be SJ.

load more comments (10 replies)