The OpenAI board was right – No (by a voice actres named Scarlet) means No

Re:The OpenAI board was right – No (by a voice actres named ... by throwawaymaths on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @05:31AM (#40426096)

> However, the company hiring her might not have the right to use her voice with the intent purpose of passing that voice off as that of the other person.

Please cite statute.

Generally speaking malicious intent only does not an illegal act make. Last I checked a voice is rightly not a trademarkable thing (it's a quality, not a definable entity).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The OpenAI board was right – No (by a voice actres named ... by rmccue on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @05:41AM (#40426185)

Case law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The OpenAI board was right – No (by a voice actres named ... by throwawaymaths on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @05:45AM (#40426212)

Thanks.

Wow, damn, that's such a crazy ruling. How distinct is distinct enough? How famous is famous enough? I'm surprised Ford's lawyers didn't press the issue further up the courts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The OpenAI board was right – No (by a voice actres named ... by NamTaf on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @06:41AM (#40426618)

No, it's a pretty straight-forward and understandable ruling. Intent matters, the law is fuzzy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The OpenAI board was right – No (by a voice actres named ... by throwawaymaths on Wednesday May 22, 2024 @06:36PM (#40447579)

Nobody said intent doesn't matter.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The OpenAI board was right – No (by a voice actres named ... by gizajob on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @05:35AM (#40426130)

Yeah but it’s not just intent, they released a product after the intent.

[ Parent | on HN ]