ARTICLE
2 August 2024

Open AI Vs Scarlett Johanson

PL
Pioneer Legal

Contributor

Pioneer Legal is a new age law firm with a dynamic approach to revolutionize the legal landscape in India. We excel in providing commercially viable legal solutions in tandem with high happiness quotient for our attorneys and clients.
The dispute between Scarlett Johansson and OpenAI revolves around the release of OpenAI's updated voice assistant in its GPT-4o model, which featured a voice that many found eerily similar...
India Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The dispute between Scarlett Johansson and OpenAI revolves around the release of OpenAI's updated voice assistant in its GPT-4o model, which featured a voice that many found eerily similar to Johansson's voice, particularly reminiscent of her role in the famous Hollywood motion picture TRAI, in its recommendations has stated that the broadcasting sector is a sunrise sector having huge potential to contribute towards the growth of the Indian economy. The vision for the NBP is to propel growth, promote content and protect interests. To achieve the aforementioned vision, TRAI has laid down various goals with a host of parameters to be fulfilled. More detailed recommendations for successfully achieving the vision and the goals havealso been provided on the official TRAI website. "Her". Open AI had approached Johansson to voice the assistant, but she declined. Subsequently, Open AI used a voice that closely resembled hers, Johansson claimed was done without her consent.

OpenAI has maintained that the voice was not intended to mimic Johansson's and was created using a different actor . However, due to the backlash and controversy, OpenAI decided to pull the voice from the model . This incident has highlighted significant concerns about the use of AI in replicating or simulating voices without explicit permission, raising broader questions about intellectual property rights and the ethical boundaries of AI technology.

The case underscores the ongoing tension between technological innovation and the rights of individuals to control the use of their likenesses and voices.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More