this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
583 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
59340 readers
5735 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- 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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the 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
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.
The ad itself makes it clear it’s impersonating her.
I do not and good luck finding it. Searches are nothing but articles or video news broadcasts about the ad but I haven’t been able to find the actual ad.
There’s no way they’d have a case unless the voice impersonated her, so I’d be shocked if the commercial didn’t present it as her, but I couldn’t find a copy of it online either. I did hear the fake Tom Hanks ad a while back, and it definitely claimed to be him, so this sort of throng has happened before. Also, there would be no point in using her voice unless the audience thinks it’s her.
Sure, in that hypothetical, there would be no case, but that would make her legal team absolute idiots for thinking that simple mimicry would be a case they could win. And there is absolutely no reason to think they are idiots since Johansson doesn’t have a history of frivolous lawsuits or losing her legal battles. She went up against hackers stealing her nudes as well as Disney and won both cases, so I’m going to give her legal team the benefit of the doubt here.
Yeah, I’m absolutely against the whole “using published works to train AI violates copyright” trend. It doesn’t make sense as long as the AI is trained not to violate copyright with its results. People are trained on published works all the time, and they aren’t punished until they violate the law with the work that they produce. I think the same rules should apply to AI.
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 individually 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.
https://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.
Ngl, I only downvoted you for bitching and whining about being downvoted