[emmp]

There are two similar famous cases I know offhand. Probably there are more.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

Bette Middler successfully sued Ford for impersonating her likeness in a commercial.

Then also:

https://casetext.com/case/waits-v-frito-lay-inc

Tom Waits successfully sued Frito Lay for using an imitator without approval in a radio commercial.

The key seems to be that if someone is famous and their voice is distinctly attributeable to them, there is a case. In both of these cases, the artists in question were also solicited first and refused.

[npunt]

Also Crispin Glover's case in Back to the Future II

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/bac...

[hooloovoo_zoo]

Both cases seem to have also borrowed from the artists’ songs too however. That could perhaps make a difference.

[pseudalopex]

Bette Midler and Tom Waits didn't control their songs when they sued the companies.

[hooloovoo_zoo]

But it makes it more likely that the listener will associate the commercial with the artist than just using the voice.

[pseudalopex]

The Midler v. Ford decision said her voice was distinctive. Not the song.

OpenAI didn't just use a voice like Scarlett Johansson's. They used it in an AI system they wanted people to associate with AI from movies and the movie where Johansson played an AI particularly.[1][2]

[1] https://blog.samaltman.com/gpt-4o

[2] https://x.com/sama/status/1790075827666796666

[deprecative]

True to an extent. I'd argue that celebrity of a certain level would make one's voice recognizable and thus confusion can happen.

[dralley]

What if the imitator is clearly an imitator? e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvF0l8RUGQ8

[gcanyon]

That's weird -- I would think Morgan Freeman would be able to sue over that, but I Am Not An Intellectual Property Lawyer.

[kelnos]

I feel like that's a little different. In the cases of Midler, Waits, and Johansson, the companies involved wanted to use their voices, were turned down, and then went with an imitator to make it seem to the audience that the celebrity was actually performing. In the case of this "Morgan Freeman" video, Freeman himself is very obviously not performing: the imitator appears on screen, so it's explicitly acknowledged in the ad.

But I'm not a lawyer of any sort either, so... ::shrug::

[yread]

The Tom Waits case had a payout of 2.6 million for services with fair market cost of 100k. What would it cost openai to train chatgpt using her voice? Is she also going to get a payout 26 times that? That GPU budget is starting to look inexpensive...

[kcplate]

You would have to argue the distinctiveness of the voice (if they hadn’t already pursued her to do it). Tom Waits…that’s pretty distinct voice. Scarlett Johansson…not so much