Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 84
5/23/2024, 12:43:16 PM
X
In reply to:
Xaberius ▶️
@Xaberius9
·
625d
@GaryMarcus Are they imitating just the character or her personal speech mannerisms and voice?

If its just the former, I don't see what the grounds for her to sue are. She might find it in bad taste because she voiced the character, but she cant say that it's violating her personal identity
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
625d
Startlingly bad take, both legally and ethically.

This guy with a couple million views has literally no idea what the law is and completely ignored the issues of consent (she said no) and intent.

The consent and intent issues are so obvious I won’t say more, but the legal…
Joseph Carlson
@joecarlsonshow
·
627d
I’m sorry. I’m 100% with OpenAI on this one.

Scarlett Johansson owns her own voice. But she has zero claim on voices that sound “similar”. She turned down the role. She doesn’t get to police them going to a second choice that sounds similar.

Imagine being the woman that voice…

The statement in question constitutes public discourse as it engages in a substantive discussion about legal and ethical issues related to intellectual property, consent, and personal identity. The tone is informative and aims to provide a reference to a legal case that might be relevant to the ongoing debate.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does no harm with words and actions as it simply provides a link to a relevant legal case without any inflammatory language or personal attacks. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others by not engaging in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. It is a neutral contribution to the discussion. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by providing a reference that could help clarify the legal context of the debate, thereby fostering a more informed discussion. [+1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive dialogue by contributing a factual reference rather than resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly by sharing relevant information that can contribute to the public understanding of the issue. [+1]