Ari Cohn: 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....

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!

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.

Johansson did voice acting in the movie who's style of voice they copied. She's recognizable by it. The best counterargument would be claiming the voice is distinct enough that people shouldn't be confused (a weak one when it fooled her family).

"recognizable by it" is necessary but not sufficient

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.

I think Ari is understating the issue and that there’s a passing off claim to be made; especially after Altman’s ill-advised tweet, it seems clear that he wanted people to think this was the character from the movie. Does Johansson own the portrayal of that character? We need a judge to answer that.

I suspect if this goes to court we will see the Hollywood studios line up with Altman. Get ready for a lot of really stupid takes about how this is “proof” that the studios are aligned with AI developers. There’s a much simpler explanation.

Right that's the other part. I was getting to. I don't think creating a voice for a movie makes that voice part of YOUR identity in the same way as a singer's voice.

I think it's almost kind of the opposite. It's the fact that people make the association of the character as Johansson that it could make it so the fact that she doesn't own the character moot, as rather than SJ ➡️ Character ⬅️ OpenAI it works like SJ ⬅️ Character ⬅️ OpenAI It's the direction of ⬆️

Someone better versed with the facts and law can tell me if this doesn't apply, but would it matter if OpenAI tweaked the sound-alike voice to be even closer to Johansson's voice? How much of the analysis turns on intent versus objective measurement?

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

Post