• Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    They “let the cat out of the bag” by referencing the movie “Her” if I understand correctly. Not really an admition of guilt like the article makes it seem.

    They also clearly state on their website that they used an other voice actor. If you actually compare both voices, they aren’t the same just similar. They probably went with someone that sounds like her on purpose specifically because of the movie but that’s fine really.

    This article is emotional and manipulative. I don’t think scar jo deserves to own the whole spectrum her voice belongs to just because she voiced an AI in one movie. This is how you end up with corporations owning all voices like they tried with music.

    • kase@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I wouldn’t ever want someone to be able to own a tone/sound of voice. I’m with you there.

      But it kinda sounds like they’re trying to straight-up imitate her. Like they want people to hear this ai and think it’s voiced by johanssen herself.

      I don’t know if that’s true, or if it even makes a difference legally, it’s just the impression I’m getting.

      I’m not knowledgeable about any of this; any correction is welcome, lol.

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      No matter how similar the voice is to Scarlett Johansson’s, it would still sound fundamentally different. But there are tricks that you can use to alter the pitch and range of a voice to make it sound more like a specific person and that’s probably what they did.