Scarlett Johansson Is Right: Tech Platforms Shouldn't Profit From Her Likeness In Unauthorized AI
Scarlett Johansson has stepped up once again with a strong statement on unauthorized AI. This time, she called out the use of her likeness in an AI-generated video addressing Kanye West's latest hate speech.
More from Deadline
Scarlett Johansson Calls On Legislators To Limit AI After Viral Video Shows Fake Image Of Her Condemning Kanye West
Scarlett Johansson Had To Threaten OpenAI With Legal Action To Get Soundalike Voice Taken Down, Wants 'Appropriate Legislation' To Stop Such Deepfakes – Update
AI Arm Of 'Dune' Visual Effects Firm DNEG Acquires Metaphysic, Which De-Aged Tom Hanks In 'Here'
She's right: It's not only about the message itself or the misuse of her own image but an unchecked technology rapidly reshaping our reality, with little to no guardrails in place. Time is of the essence to get national AI policies right and establish industrywide standards. Leading talent, like Johansson, have important voices and critical leverage to counterbalance the influence of the biggest tech platforms.
Social media platforms are profit-driven ventures designed to maximize engagement. This means algorithms prioritize virality over veracity. The most interesting content is often about the most interesting people, which includes the world's most famous celebrities. AI-generated content featuring talent – whether it's deepfake videos, fabricated audio, or AI-written misinformation – can spread like wildfire, good or bad. This particular video was all over the internet – Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, and more. There were no mechanisms at the platforms in place to stop it from spreading. While the platforms each theoretically have the ability to act, history tells us they won't unless compelled to do so. We can't expect them to police themselves.
From IP rights to fair compensation, the entertainment industry has long fought to protect talent from exploitation at the hands of tech platforms. They've generally reacted, rather than led. In the new era of AI, these battles take on an entirely new urgency. Unauthorized AI-generated content isn't just an inconvenience – it's an existential threat to personal identity, professional livelihoods (of both talent and IP holders), and even democratic institutions. History has shown that platforms will leverage the world's leading talent and most beloved IP without sharing a fair piece of the growing pie. If we don't act now, we risk ceding control of reality itself to technology that can fabricate and spread convincing falsehoods at scale.
As the CEO of an AI licensing and protection platform, of course I believe that this remarkable technology isn't inherently bad. With proper guardrails, AI regulated by AI offers a powerful tool to talent and creators. Instead of having it used without her consent, what if Scarlett Johansson wanted to license her voice for an educational tool for children or for a cause of her choice? Consider a podcaster who wants to license their AI-generated likeness to create promotional material for lucrative compensation that fuels their creativity. These are positive applications of AI that could empower talent, rather than exploit them. But this only works if real technology guardrails, industrywide standards, and the proper legislation are all in place.
The leverage of leading talent, like Johansson, is critical. Regulation cannot be left to the discretion of tech CEOs, whose incentives are not always aligned with Hollywood or the general public's. Hollywood, Washington and the tech industry are all circling AI. Hollywood's leading voices need to fight for a spot at the table when it comes to passing legislation that regulates the spread of AI-generated content. All parties need to come together to establish clear and enforceable guardrails. That means legislation ensuring consent in AI-generated likeness and voice replication, meaningful data protections, and regulated platform accountability for the spread of unauthorized content.
The recent decision in the Thomson Reuters case shows that courts are beginning to take AI-related copyright issues seriously. Talent must leverage this momentum to ensure their voices are heard and shaping these decisions. If talent doesn't step up, tech platforms will dominate the conversation, and history has shown that when that happens, creators and the public more broadly get left with the smallest piece of the pie.
Johansson's voice carries weight, but she shouldn't have to fight this battle alone. More people – especially the most recognizable faces who are driving so much of the most viral content – need to speak up. The technology exists to monitor and enforce regulations on the biggest platforms, so let's require the platforms to use them. The time to act is now – before tech platforms drown out the voices of talent and we collectively lose our ability to distinguish fact from fiction.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
43 minutes ago
- Atlantic
‘Rubber Burns, the Map Fades Away.' Sure, Fine.
The traffic receded as Chicago withdrew into the distance behind me on Interstate 90. Barns and trees dotted the horizon. The speakers in my rental car, playing Spotify from my smartphone, put out the opening riff of a laid-back psychedelic-rock song. When the lyrics came, delivered in a folksy vibrato, they matched my mood: 'Smoke in the sky / No peace found,' the band's vocalist sang. Except perhaps he didn't really sing, because he doesn't exist. By all appearances, neither does the band, called the Velvet Sundown. Its music, lyrics, and album art may be AI inventions. Same goes for the photos of the band. Social-media accounts associated with the band have been coy on the subject: 'They said we're not real. Maybe you aren't either,' one Velvet Sundown post declares. (That account did not respond to a request for comment via direct message.) Whatever its provenance, the Velvet Sundown seems to be successful: It released two albums last month alone, with a third on its way. And with more than 850,000 monthly listeners on Spotify, its reach exceeds that of the late-'80s MTV staple Martika or the hard-bop jazz saxophonist Cannonball Adderley. As for the music: You know, it's not bad. It's not good either. It's more like nothing—not good or bad, aesthetically or morally. Having listened to both of the Velvet Sundown's albums as I drove from Chicago to Madison, Wisconsin, earlier this week, I discovered that what may now be the most successful AI group on Spotify is merely, profoundly, and disturbingly innocuous. In that sense, it signifies the fate of music that is streamed online and then imbibed while one drives, cooks, cleans, works, exercises, or does any other prosaic act. Long before generative AI began its takeover of the internet, streaming music had turned anodyne —a vehicle for vibes, not for active listening. A single road trip with the Velvet Sundown was enough to prove this point: A major subset of the music that we listen to today might as well have been made by a machine. The technical quilt that was necessary to produce an AI album has been assembling for some time. Large language models such as ChatGPT can produce plausible song lyrics, liner notes, and other textual material. Software such as Suno can, based on text prompts, create songs with both instrumentation and vocals. Image generators can be directed to create illustrated compositions for album art and realistic images of a band and its members, and then maintain the appearance of those people across multiple images. When I got to Madison, I signed up for Suno's service. Mere moments later, I had created my own psychedelic-rock, road-trip-themed jam, a bit more amplified and less sitar-adjacent than the Velvet Sundown's. I didn't even have to name the track; Suno dubbed it 'Endless Highway' on my behalf. 'Rubber burns, the map fades away / Chasing the ghosts of yesterday,' its fake male vocalist intoned. Sure, fine. But cultural circumstances have also made AI music tolerable, and even welcome to some listeners. At the turn of the century, Napster made digital music free, and the iPod made it legitimate. You could carry a whole record store in your pocket. Soon after, Spotify, which became the biggest music-streaming service, started curating and then algorithmically generating playlists, which gave listeners recommendations for new music and offered easy clicks into hours of sound in any subgenre, real or invented—acid jazz, holiday bossa nova, whatever. Even just the phrase lazy Sunday could be turned into a playlist. So could lawn mowing or baking. Whatever Spotify put into your queue was good enough, because you could always skip ahead or plug in a new prompt. Real or not, the Velvet Sundown feels more like a playlist than a band. Its 'Verified Artist' description on Spotify used to read, 'Their sound mixes textures of '70s psychedelic alt-rock and folk rock, yet it blends effortlessly with modern alt-pop and indie structures.' That assembly of influences, stretching across half a century, appears with greater and lesser prevalence in each of the band's numbers. 'As the Silence Falls' feels indie folk, with washed-out guitars and soft vocals; 'Smoke and Silence' is more bluesy, with stronger vocals and a classic-rock feel. From track to track, the singer's voice seems to change in tone too—perhaps a quirk of generativity—making the collection feel less like a purposeful LP and more like a blind-bag gamble. Music used to define someone's identity: punk, rock, country, alternative, and so forth. Asking 'What music do you like?' could elicit a person's taste, values, and fashion sense. The rockers might hang out behind the gym and smoke cigarettes; they were a clique just like the jocks and the nerds. Finding, joining, and deepening a connection to a music subculture required effort; you had to find the right venues, records, zines, or crowd. In that era, music was tribal. A relationship with the Sisters of Mercy, Guns N' Roses, or Bauhaus represented a commitment. Not so much today. The internet has fragmented and flattened subcultures. The Velvet Sundown's puppeteers present the band's soft pastiche of genres—psychedelic, folk, indie—as sophisticated fusion, but of course it's nothing more than a careless smear of stylistic averages. Psychedelic, folk, and indie rock each in their own way have something to say, musically and lyrically—about musical convention, spirituality, introspection, or social and political circumstances. The Velvet Sundown doesn't seem to care about any of those things. This approach appears to be serving the band or its creators very well. The Velvet Sundown may actually appeal to people. None of its tracks go hard; instead, each one offers something slightly different—a sitar lick, a blues-guitar solo, a folk-adjacent country twang—that might prove palatable to any given listener. Perhaps no human artist could tolerate producing such soulless lackluster, but an AI is unburdened by shame. The lyrics' milquetoast moodiness may also contribute to the band's listener numbers. Each line is short, and the phrases barely connect to one another, making it easy for listeners to hear whatever they might want to hear: 'Dust on the wind / Boots on the ground / Smoke in the sky / No peace found.' Really makes you think, until you realize that, no, it doesn't at all. Where the music engages with the political commitments that often characterize its influences, it does so in a way that could mean anything. Take the chorus of 'End the Pain,' one of the band's top songs on Spotify. Singing with folk-rock urgency, the alleged 'frontman and mellowtron sorcerer' Gabe Farrow pleads, 'No more guns, no more graves / Send no heroes, just the brave.' These words convey the sensibility of an anti-war anthem, but they offer so little detail that the song could adequately service supporters or detractors of any conflict, past or present. Anonymous and mild sensibilities have currency because today's music—whether created and curated by humans or machines—is so often used to make people feel nothing instead of something. In open-plan offices, people started donning headphones to gain some semblance of privacy. At home, they do the same to mask the sound of traffic or their roommates' Zoom calls. Internet-connected, whole-house audio systems can turn any room into a souped-up, algorithmic white-noise machine that sounds like Italo disco or chillhop in the way that LaCroix tastes like lime. The music that is best adapted for these settings is that which descends from what Brian Eno dubbed, on his 1979 album, Music for Airports, 'ambient.' This music is not meant to be listened to directly; it's used to drown out everything else. As I drove amid the cornfields on I-90, the Velvet Sundown did just that. The band's tracks were not satisfying in any way, but they were apt. I was on the road, but I could be anywhere—awaiting a Pilates class, paying for deli meat, scrolling through internet memes—and the sound would hit the mark. And the worst part was that it was fine. It was fine! To my great embarrassment, the Velvet Sundown's songs even managed to worm their way into my brain. Did I like their music? No, but my aesthetic judgment had given over to its vibes, that contemporary euphemism for ultra-processed atmosphere. How far could I push this feeling? Returning to the car after a refreshment stop, I tried to make Spotify go meta on the band: I asked the app to generate a playlist made from songs that are similar to the Velvet Sundown's. A list appeared of bands I didn't recognize. Many seemed a little off: Appalachian White Lightning and Flaherty Brotherhood sounded like they might be AI acts as well. (A little Googling revealed that others suspect the same.) I suppose this makes sense; I was asking the algorithm to give me a channel of sanitized, inauthentic-seeming psychedelic-folk-indie rock, and it delivered. I pondered for a moment whether any of the other artists on my custom playlist (the South Carolina folk-rock singer-songwriter Johnny Delaware? The Belgian folk-pop quartet Lemon Straw?) might be fake—and how one might try to suss that out. The question felt exhausting, so I switched back to the Velvet Sundown. As I drove and the music played, I felt nothing—but I felt that nothing with increasing acuteness. I was neither moved nor sad nor pensive, just aware of the fact that my body and mind exist in a tenuous zizz somewhere between life, death, and computers. This is second-order music listening, in which you experience the idea of listening to music. What better band to provide that service than one that doesn't even exist? But looking toward the blushing sky ahead of me, I realized that I didn't even want this music to be art, or to feel that I was communing with its makers. I simply hoped to think and feel as little as possible while piloting my big car through the empty evening of America. This music—perhaps most music now—is not for dancing or even for airports; it's for the void. I pressed play and gripped the wheel and accelerated back onto the tollway, as the machines lulled me into oblivion.
Washington Post
44 minutes ago
- Washington Post
What parents need to know about ‘Jurassic World Rebirth' and more
Age 12+ Violent dino sequel focuses on a shady crew and an unlucky family. The Jurassic Park franchise's seventh installment introduces a crew of characters played by Scarlett Johansson, Jonathan Bailey, Mahershala Ali and others. Expect intense peril, jump scares, deaths, near-deaths (including fake-outs involving children), and many scenes of people being attacked and eaten by dinosaurs. The most graphic moments feature blood, skeletons, humans being chomped and swallowed, and a severed arm getting spit out. Characters drink alcohol at a bar, and one jokes about weed to a tween. Language isn't frequent, but you can expect to hear 's---,' 'b----,' 'damn,' and exclamations such as 'oh God' and 'Jesus.' A teen couple flirts and hugs. One non-explicit scene depicts two dinosaurs cuddling or possibly mating. While many characters are morally gray, the film ultimately promotes teamwork, redemption and choosing to help others. (133 minutes)
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The IPO market in 2025 is being driven by a clear theme — bigger is better
For companies that have gone public in 2025, the market has sent a clear message: The big winners are the biggest companies. Two of this year's marquee debutants — Circle (CRCL) and CoreWeave (CRWV), which are riding the crypto and AI booms — boast market capitalizations of more than $45 billion and have seen shares rise over 500% and 310% as of July 3, respectively, since their market debuts. Across all sectors, 100 US companies with a market cap of $50 million or more have priced an IPO this year, a 42.9% increase from the same time last year, according to Renaissance Capital, a provider of pre-IPO research and IPO-focused ETFs. At least six of those with a market cap of more than $1 billion have seen their share price double since opening, and at least three of those companies have seen shares rise more than 500% from where their IPO priced. The Renaissance IPO ETF, which tracks the firm's public offering index, notched a 20% gain in Q2, erasing Q1 losses of 14%. Avery Marquez, director of investment strategies at Renaissance, told Yahoo Finance the success of offerings like Circle, CoreWeave, and eToro Group (ETOR) — which all raised more than $600 million on their IPOs — is pushing leadership at private firms operating at similar scale to move forward with the public offering process. Just this week, Figma ( became the latest AI-adjacent player to file for a public offering, announcing in a July 1 securities filing that it will look to initiate an IPO and go public under the ticker 'FIG.' Pricing has not yet been announced, but the company was last valued at $12.5 billion in a recent tender offer. It's not just AI and crypto stocks that have performed well, either. Medtech developer Anbio Biotechnology (NNNN) is up over 630% with a market cap of $1.62 billion since going public earlier this year, and Hong Kong-based Diginex Limited (DGNX), which develops ESG reporting solutions, is up 930% with a $1 billion market cap. And while June and July traditionally see a strong volume of IPO activity, last month was quieter than usual — likely due to uncertainty around tariffs and President Trump's looming July 9 deadline for trade deals, Renaissance told Yahoo Finance. But the firm expects to see a stronger recovery in go-public deals once this fall, powered by the success high-profile issues have enjoyed since going public. 'It's not just two or three companies that have done amazing — it's really a broader group that has been well received, that has received sustained interest in the aftermarket,' Marquez said. Companies considering an IPO are 'seeing these deals come to market and do well, and then continue to do well.' Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
