Ari Cohn: Ill admit to being not all that perturbed about soundalikes in general. I can agree that false claims that someone *actually* is the voice when they aren't is problematic, but it seems to be from other responses that everyone knew from the beginning it was a soundalike!

Remember when everyone was absolutely certain about the thing that totally happened and exemplified everything wrong with "AI culture" that ended up being...not what happened? www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2...

OpenAI didn’t copy Scarlett Johansson’s voice for ChatGPT, records showwww.washingtonpost.com A different actress was hired to voice OpenAI’s “Sky” months before CEO Sam Altman contacted Scarlett Johansson, according to documents and the actress’s agent.

Ari, this isn’t a great take. It’s still incredibly likely that they wanted to have people think it was her. bsky.app/profile/lega...

In voiceover work there’s a concept called a “soundalike” which is an actor chosen to impersonate someone more famous. My guess was always that this was what they did.

Ill admit to being not all that perturbed about soundalikes in general. I can agree that false claims that someone *actually* is the voice when they aren't is problematic, but it seems to be from other responses that everyone knew from the beginning it was a soundalike!

You might not be that perturbed personally, but assuming you've followed at least some of the various artists' union negotiations and lobbying efforts, you must be aware that one of the most important issues to artists is whether they can protect exclusive control of their voice and performance.

Sure. And I agree that falsely claiming it is her l, or misleading people into thinking it is, are both bad. But past that...meh

So if they just do everything they can to make the ai voice sound like SJ, but never say anything about it sounding like her voice, or not, they're fine, legally speaking?

Maybe. Probably.

How did that work out for Ford?

Different facts. Different laws.

I dunno man, I'm just a layman here, but "Hey ScarJo, will you do this voice? If not, we'll just get someone who sounds exactly like you and let people think of you and your character when they hear it." seems problematic, no?

The point isn't if the people in the company knows, the point is what the public thinks when they market it and if they intentionally make it seem like it's her. Publicity rights don't work like copyright here

I did t say anything about what the company knows. Someone quoted the post saying "it's not news that it's a soundalike, nobody ever thought it was actually her, that's not the point." Well, if that's true....

Publicity rights cover likeness, if people who didn't know otherwise think that she did the voice then that's likely enough. It does not require convincing everybody she did the voice, it does not require direct copying. And apparently her own family thought the voice was hers.

I know what publicity rights are. And that's not really an accurate summary.

Is Wikipedia missing something? What part does not apply when they clearly wanted the voice to make people think of her? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_...

Midler v. Ford Motor Co. - Wikipediaen.m.wikipedia.org

You have to get there first. Midler was about a singer, a much more clear-cut case of voice being distinctive and integral to identity.

Just because there’s an article on Wikipedia that’s kind of about an issue doesn’t make that article apposite to the topic under discussion. That judgment exists but isn’t really the state of the law on rights of personality nationwide.

does it not humiliate you to find yourself talking to actual lawyers like this?

I mean, if that’s true: 1) Why did they feel the need to officially license her voice at all? 2) If they thought a sound a like was safe from civil suits, why pull it in response to her C&D?

It's OK everyone, Ari is not perturbed by this thing that is still very much grounds for a lawsuit

Post