• Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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.

    • kase@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      I wouldn’t ever want someone to be able to own a tone/sound of voice. I’m with you there.

      But it kinda sounds like they’re trying to straight-up imitate her. Like they want people to hear this ai and think it’s voiced by johanssen herself.

      I don’t know if that’s true, or if it even makes a difference legally, it’s just the impression I’m getting.

      I’m not knowledgeable about any of this; any correction is welcome, lol.

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      No matter how similar the voice is to Scarlett Johansson’s, it would still sound fundamentally different. But there are tricks that you can use to alter the pitch and range of a voice to make it sound more like a specific person and that’s probably what they did.

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 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.