undefined | Better HN

0 pointsethbr12y ago0 comments

> I would have thought that if they made the decision to go ahead despite getting two "no"s, that they at least had a legal position they thought was defensible and worth defending.

They likely have a legal position which is defensible.

They're much more worried that they don't have a PR position which is defensible.

What's the point of winning the (legal) battle if you lose the war (of public opinion)?

Given the rest of their product is built on apathy to copyright, they're actively being sued by creators, and the general public is sympathetic to GenAI taking human jobs...

... this isn't a great moment for OpenAI to initiate a long legal battle, against a female movie actress / celebrity, in which they're arguing how her likeness isn't actually controlled by her.

Talk about optics!

(And I'd expect they quietly care much more about their continued ability to push creative output through their copyright launderer, than get into a battle over likeness)

0 comments

5 comments · 2 top-level

XorNot2y ago· 2 in thread

How is the PR position not defensible? One of the worst things you can generally do is admit fault, particularly if you have a complete defense.

Buckle in, go to court, and double-down on the fact that the public's opinion of actors is pretty damn fickle at the best of times - particularly if what you released was in fact based on someone you signed a valid contract with who just sounds similar.

Of course, this is all dependent on actually having a complete defense of course - you absolutely would not want to find Scarlett Johannsen voice samples in file folders associated with the Sky model if it went to court.

ethbr1OP2y ago

In what world does a majority of the public cheer for OpenAI "stealing"* an actress's voice?

People who hate Hollywood? Most of that crowd hates tech even more.

* Because it would take the first news cycle to be branded as that

XorNot2y ago

It is wild to me that on HackerNews of all places, you'd think people don't love an underdog story.

Which is what this would be in the not-stupid version of events: they hired a voice actress for the rights to create the voice, she was paid, and then is basically told by the courts "actually you're unhireable because you sound too much like an already rich and famous person".

The issue of course is that OpenAIs reactions so far don't seem to indicate that they're actually confident they can prove this or that this is the case. Coz if this is actually the case, they're going about handling this in the dumbest possible way.

3 more replies

justinclift2y ago· 1 in thread

> They likely have a legal position which is defensible.

Doesn't sound like they have that either.

bonton892y ago

Copilot still tells me I've commit a content policy violation of I ask it to generate an image "in Tim Burton's style". Tim Burton has been openly critical of generative AI.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse