1y ago

Scarlett Johansson hits AI app with legal action for cloning her voice in an ad | An AI-generated version of Scarlett Johansson’s voice appeared in an online ad without her consent.

www.theverge.com Scarlett Johansson hits AI app with legal action for cloning her voice in an ad

This likely won’t be the first time this happens.

Scarlett Johansson hits AI app with legal action for cloning her voice in an ad | An AI-generated version of Scarlett Johansson’s voice appeared in an online ad without her consent.::Scarlett Johansson is taking legal action against an AI app developer for using her likeness in an online ad without her consent.

Technology @beehaw.org

Scarlett Johansson hits AI app with legal action for cloning her voice in an ad

www.theverge.com /2023/11/1/23942557/scarlett-johansson-ai-app-developers-lawsuit

218 38

You're viewing a single thread.

39 comments

I'd be amazed if it was actually her and not her lawyer/agency
Yeah fuck em, shit like this without consent should be (/is?) illegal
- Well duh. Of course you go through your legal team. That’s what they’re for.
  
  This.
  
  This
  That
  
  I don’t get it, it was the same joke! It’s just a popularity contest with you guys!
  
  This
- It's her voice and she's the client. The lawyers can't file without her okaying it. She's also a pretty solid businessperson, she took on Disney and won.
- It is. Something something, using their likeness (in a commercial context).
- Imitating celebrities is usually done for satire and very much protected free speech.
  Why should it be illegal in this case? I can see that the rich and famous would be able to profit from licensing and endorsement deals, but what's the public benefit?
  ETA: So many downvotes. Where did all the eat-the-rich-people go, all of a sudden?
  
  There's a very obvious distinction between satire, I.E. imitating a public figure to make a joke about them, and using their likeness for marketing, I.E. making it seem as if that public figure endorses a product/service/etc.
  One is legally protected free speech, the other is illegally misusing a person's likeness, and regardless of whether or not they are a celebrity should be protected against because it is deceptive to the public and violates the person's inherent right to control of their own likeness.
  Regardless of your views on celebrity in general and the merit of famous figures in society, it's quite clear that this kind of AI mimicry needs to be stomped out fast and early, or else we will rapidly end up in a situation where shady scam artists and massive corporate interests will freely use AI zombies of popular personalities, living or dead, to hawk their wares with impunity.
  
  That's a rather odd reply. I don't think the ideology you express is very common. If you were to tell me more, I would read it.
  I did not give any views on celebrities. I simply asked what the public benefit was. Do I infer correctly that, to you, the public benefit is beside that point, but that your view on this is determined by your views of celebrities?
  Please note that fraud is criminal, which makes it hard to see what exactly you would want to be done about "shady scam artists".
  Note also that "massive corporations" can only benefit here if there is a kind of property right, similar to a trademark or a copyright. EG The Disney corporation still owns the rights to "Mickey Mouse", created in 1928. That's the same year in which Fleming discovered Penicillin, which is owned by no one. So if you have a problem with "massive corporations" extracting wealth, here, you very much need to rethink your position.

39 comments