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

        Not what you or the Supreme Court thinks.

        Phew, good thing the courts in the USA - (a country with sadly laughable protections for people’s rights compared to other large developed regions like the EU) - are the only courts in the world, and what they do is the only thing that matters.

        Thanks for telling us all what we think, by the way. Where would we be without an American telling us all what we think?

        We’re so lucky.

    • lorkano@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      83
      ·
      7 months ago

      This article is bullshit man, voice is not even that similar, there is 0 proof that’s her voice or even that they asked her if they can use her voice. People is blowing this out of proportion

      • soba@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        52
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        But they did ask if they could license her voice and she said no. Balls in your court.

        • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          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.

        • lorkano@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          30
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          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

          • soba@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            7 months ago

            And despite all your lame denials they are shutting that voice down. Why is that?

            • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              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.

            • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

              • catloaf@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                The court of public opinion has a much lower burden of proof than the court of law.

                • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  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.