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.
The developer is called “convert software”, which is a pretty vague name. This developer/team could be anywhere in the world.
nx2@feddit.de 1 year ago
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
anon_8675309@lemmy.world 1 year ago
ultratiem@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Pips@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
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.
ayaya@lemdro.id 1 year ago
SlapnutsGT@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The ad itself makes it clear it’s impersonating her.
Dran_Arcana@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Fwiw I disagreed with you but upvoted for making a reasoned argument. We do need to drop that reddit mentality of downvote what you disagree with. IMHO you should downvote things that are either demonstrably false, or low-effort.
That said, I think both voice/image impersonation would fit the bill for “intent to deceive”. I’d be surprised if it didn’t already have a lot of legal precedent in the realm of advertising.
casetext.com/case/waits-v-frito-lay-inc
The tom watts case is the only one I’m aware of off the top of my head, but the TL/Dr is they tried to license a song of his to use, he refused, so they just hired an impersonator to sing in his style instead. He sued Frito lay and won.
wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 1 year ago
Ngl, I only downvoted you for bitching and whining about being downvoted
hiremenot_recruiter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
It is. Something something, using their likeness (in a commercial context).
Mahlzeit@feddit.de 1 year ago
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?
Doug7070@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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.