this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
122 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
71923 readers
3146 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If the company uses a reference to you to make money, I’d definitely feel entitled to compensation.
By reference do you mean somewhat similar sounding voice? This is status quo for voice acting. Do you think if someone tries to hire James Earl Jones for a voice part and he says no they throw their arms up, say fuck it and hire Megan Mullally? When hiring a voice actor you have a certain sound in mind you are going for and you take the closest thing your budget allows.
I do get off on how heated this whole debate has gotten with everyone picking the side of completely unrelatable rich people. I'm waiting for a good AI generated porno with altman and johansen reaching forgiveness in the form of a passionate 69.
No, I mean referring to the movie Her which features the voice of Johansen as an AI assistant
The producers of Her do not own the concept, nor does Scarlet. Nothing is referring to the movie other than it's a personal assistant with a bubbly womans voice which is much too broad and general to infringe on anything. Its not even close to being a unique concept either.
Except maybe tweeting the name of the movie: https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666
Doubt she has any rights to that movie though. That's not usually how things work. Again, let's bring in my good friend JEJ. When people mimic Darth Vader, he doesn't personally get a cut or have entitlement to any rights for mimicking that voice.
It's not the script writer or the producer that's complaining though. I think it's more reasonable for them to want compensation.
Producer, maybe. But what part of the script did they use for marketing of an unrelated product?
Not anything literally from the script, but I assume that's where the concept of a voice controlled AI assistant came from - whoever holds the rights to that in relation to the title "Her". So if it's based on a novel or story, clearly the writer of that.
It really isn't where it came from, they are just the current most popular example of it. We literally had Alexa before the movie came out, as well as An de Armas in the second blade runner and Cortana in the halo video game series as notable examples. AI assistants have always been ubiquitous with sci Fi movies, in most cases they control the ship and aren't personal though.
I'm aware of that, but we seem to get get distracted from the main point. In the case of OpenAI versus "Her" (i.e. Them launching a similar product, and referencing the film), I think it's the owners of the Her IP that should have a right to complain. Not an actress that was in it, and whose voice is similar to it. According to the article, there were 2 well-known actresses whose vice matched even better. Should they take action as well?
All of this is under the assumption that they didn't actual train on her voice - which does seem likely.
This Hollywood idea that famous people are owed perpetual passive income for work they did decades ago needs to die in a fire.
It's not even a reference to Scarlett, it's at best a reference to a movie that she has no rights over.
She was offered a job, refused it, and they went with a different actress. She doesn't own her "likeness". They owe nothing to her or her ego.
But it doesn’t reference the whole movie, does it. It’s meant to invoke a memory of a specific character in the movie, since that’s the business Altman is in.
And we don’t know what kind of deal Johansen struck for that movie. Maybe she does own her likeness in it. We’ll see, I guess.