this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
1174 points (94.6% liked)

Technology

59378 readers
2704 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Let's say OpenAI did actually use Scarlett Johansson's voice. Who owns the audio that OpenAI used? Scarlett Johansson herself or the movie company that used the audio in their movie(s)? This might be a case of Scarlett Johansson vs the movie company, not Scarlett Johansson vs OpenAI, as OpenAI could have paid for them.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago

If she signed away her likeness rights then probably. However if the contract didn't have a provision for transfer to another medium then they would revert to her.

Source: Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago

I've never seen "her" the movie and at certain inflections all I could hear is Scarlett Johansson's voice.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is very much the type of case that settles out of court for an undisclosed amount of money.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It could be, if she wants it to be.

It could also be the type of case where her lawyers stop openAI from ever using her voice again, if she wants that to be the case.

Being rich opens up options. If openAI would be using my voice instead, they'd have a wildly less popular product but nobody to sue them for it, cause I'd be using my money to still dream about home ownership at some point before I die, not to hire lawyers or fight windmills.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Or OpenAI are targeting a known litigious actress so that any competitors thinking of creating a business of celebrity-sound-alike are sufficiently dissuaded.

Regulatory Capture

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago (1 children)

To add to this, Scarlett Johansson took on Disney and they settled. And Disney is like the final boss of litigious companies (either them or Nintendo). If she has the same legal team for this, and they think she has a case against OpenAI, this could open the door for OpenAI to get rightfully clobbered for their tech-bro ignoring of copyright laws.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Obviously I don't know what the details of he suit against Disney but the truth is Disney fucked up and they knew it.

Disney tried to gain a few extra bucks at the cost of a legal battle with Johansson. If Disney won it would have been a clear signal that Disney is willing to screw over top talent for a few million dollars.

Not to compare "Black Widow" to "Endgame", but that's squabbling over millions when billions are at stake.

Looking at someone like Johansson that's squabbling over millions when tens of hundreds millions are at stake. Contracts with top talent now take longer, top talent is a little less likely to work with Disney.

It all but guaranteed a loss for Disney.

The settlement was Disney's way of saying "we fucked up", and truth be told was probably at least partially responsible for Bob Chapek being replaced as CEO.

load more comments
view more: next ›