I don't actually see an ethical issue with this situation, unless the voice was specifically trained using clips of Scarlett Johansson's actual voice.
I should have some say over how my actual voice is used. If I am a public figure, ala Donald Trump, and there are a lot of people out there who do a great impression of me, those voices belong to the people actually creating them, not me.
If it turns out that there are people out there who either naturally sound like Scarlett Johansson, or who can alter their voice so that they sound like her, they should have the freedom to profit from their own talents (natural or otherwise).
If the resulting AI voice isn't actually claiming to be Johansson and isn't trained using her actual voice, I don't see anything wrong with it.
"
The appellate court ruled that the voice of someone famous as a singer is distinctive to their person and image and therefore, as a part of their identity, it is unlawful to imitate their voice without express consent and approval."
Thanks for sharing. I completely disagree with their rationale and decision but it’s good to know about the precedent here. I’d be completely on Ford’s side here too!
I would not be surprised to see that precedent overturned at some point because its outcome seems to deny individuals the right to profit from their own abilities, just because they happen to sound like a famous person.
In a novel case of voice theft, a Los Angeles federal court jury Tuesday awarded gravel-throated recording artist Tom Waits $2.475 million in damages from Frito-Lay Inc. and its advertising agency.
The U.S. District Court jury found that the corn chip giant unlawfully appropriated Waits’ distinctive voice, tarring his reputation by employing an impersonator to record a radio ad for a new brand of spicy Doritos corn chips.
The biggest problem is that they were making insinuations that it was intentionally similar to her role in the movie Her (and even contacted her directly to do it).
There are laws for unauthorized use of likeness that could possibly apply here.
I'm not familiar with the specific laws that are relevant here, but I have trouble buying the argument that this constitutes a "likeness" when Johansson was in no way involved in its creation, other than by providing inspiration.
So they asked her and she turned them down. But guess what, they can get a pretty good result without even involving her. It turns out that her "talent" for the voice from the movie Her is in fact not so unique and valuable because it can be reasonably well replicated by other people, so why shouldn't a company be able to choose an alternative like that? A person should not have an exclusive claim to the rights of all voices that sound remotely like theirs.
Celebrities have some right to publicity, so in this case she could argue that they were watering down the value of her as an actress by widely selling an unauthorized sound-alike.
The laws around this aren't strong (which is why her response pointed out the need for legislation), and as I mentioned OpenAI would have been in a much stronger position if they didn't directly reference the film publicly several times. One could argue that they were using the film and her role to promote their product.
ethics and legality are completely different things, this case isn't black and white at all.
if you're just talking ethically though, i still find it shady. it would be like asking Gaudi to design a new building, then when he says no, finding Bob who can replicate Gaudi's style really well. there, it's legal, and you could say it's ethically fine because Bob should have freedom to profit from his skill. But it feels gross
I should have some say over how my actual voice is used. If I am a public figure, ala Donald Trump, and there are a lot of people out there who do a great impression of me, those voices belong to the people actually creating them, not me.
If it turns out that there are people out there who either naturally sound like Scarlett Johansson, or who can alter their voice so that they sound like her, they should have the freedom to profit from their own talents (natural or otherwise).
If the resulting AI voice isn't actually claiming to be Johansson and isn't trained using her actual voice, I don't see anything wrong with it.