It’s the final stage of the pump n dump.

Direct link

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/five-men-convicted-operating-major-illegal-streaming-service

Yes, for a monthly subscription!

Thanks, updated.

deleted by creator

That was the point.

I asked ChatGPT for a response to your comment

Your comment raises several interesting points regarding the use of voice likeness and the legal implications of hiring voice actors who sound similar to well-known celebrities. Let’s break down the key issues:

1. Use of a Similar Voice: The core of the debate revolves around whether using a voice that sounds like a well-known celebrity constitutes a legal issue. If the voice used is indeed not Scarlett Johansson’s but merely resembles it, this might not be inherently illegal. However, it could still lead to legal disputes over rights of publicity and potential misrepresentation.

2. Voice Acting and Vocal Qualities: It is true that many voice actors can mimic the vocal qualities of celebrities. Hiring a voice actor who naturally has a similar voice to a celebrity is a common practice. The legal line is crossed if the intent and execution imply endorsement or use of the celebrity’s identity without permission.

3. Rights of Publicity: Celebrities, including Scarlett Johansson, have rights of publicity, which protect against unauthorized commercial use of their name, likeness, and other identifiable aspects of their persona. If the resemblance is close enough that it creates confusion or implies endorsement, it could be grounds for a lawsuit.

4. Potential for a Lawsuit: Whether Scarlett Johansson would win a lawsuit depends on several factors, including the jurisdiction’s specific laws on rights of publicity, the exact nature of the voice usage, and whether it can be proven that the voice model intentionally mimics her voice in a way that exploits her identity.

5. Practical Examples: Your analogy with James Earl Jones highlights a key point. If a voice actor is hired for their natural resemblance to a well-known voice, it’s typically acceptable. However, explicitly marketing or promoting the voice in a way that suggests it is the celebrity without their consent could lead to legal challenges.

In summary, while it may not be outright illegal to use a voice that sounds like a celebrity, there are significant legal nuances and potential for litigation if the use implies unauthorized endorsement or exploits the celebrity’s identity. The balance lies in how the voice is marketed and whether it misleads the audience into believing it is the celebrity.

As a final fun thing today, check out how Google News’s AI junk has hallucinated a factually incorrect headline that’s the exact opposite of the truth here

Here is a sample

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgYi3Wr7v_g

🤫

It’s an industry benchmark, but also a competition that drives innovation. Supercomputers are essential for weather forecasts, climate predictions, simulations of black holes, and other cool stuff.

Nowhere is safe

“Dude, you’re getting your identity stolen!”

Why would you repost this article, but change the title? I hope you’re at least getting paid.

https://lemmy.world/post/12425175

Repost with edited title. NY times? The best part is in the body you put “in regards to the cause of SMO”.

Stores and restaurants increasing their base prices to promote discounts from data harvesting apps.