Scarlett Johansson Invited to Testify on OpenAI Voice Controversy

The article describes the deployment and subsequent withdrawal of an AI-powered voice assistant that allegedly mimicked Johansson’s voice without authorization. This constitutes a violation of Johansson’s rights (intellectual property/right of publicity), directly tied to the use of an AI system, and thus meets the criteria for an AI Incident.

An AI system (ChatGPT’s Sky voice and other deepfake tools) was used to clone Johansson’s voice without permission, causing identity and rights violations. This is a realized harm stemming directly from the AI’s outputs and constitutes an AI Incident.

The article describes how OpenAI's CEO wanted to use Scarlett Johansson's real voice for an AI voice system but ended up using a voice that closely mimicked hers without her consent. Johansson expressed shock and anger, indicating harm to her personal rights. The AI voice was removed after legal intervention. The AI system's use directly led to a violation of Johansson's rights and caused personal harm, fitting the definition of an AI Incident involving violation of rights and harm to a person.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (ChatGPT voice assistant) that used a voice closely resembling Scarlett Johansson's without her consent, which she alleges is a form of theft of her personal voice. This constitutes a violation of personal and possibly intellectual property rights, which falls under harm category (c) in the AI Incident definition. The harm has already occurred as Johansson publicly objects to the unauthorized use, and OpenAI's removal of the voice is a response to the incident, not a preventive measure. Hence, this is an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event clearly involves an AI system (ChatGPT voice assistant) whose use has directly led to a violation of Johansson's personal rights by using a voice that closely resembles hers without consent. This is a breach of obligations intended to protect fundamental and intellectual property rights. The harm is realized as Johansson expresses distress and objection to the use of her voice likeness. OpenAI's removal of the voice after the complaint does not negate the fact that the harm occurred. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to violation of rights caused by the AI system's use.

The AI system (ChatGPT's speech synthesis) is explicitly involved, as it generates the voice named Sky. The controversy arises from the voice sounding very similar to Scarlett Johansson's without her consent, raising concerns about potential intellectual property or personality rights violations. OpenAI denies direct use of Johansson's voice but has decided to suspend the voice's use, indicating recognition of the plausible risk. Since no actual legal violation or harm has been confirmed or reported, and the main focus is on the potential for harm and the company's precautionary response, this fits the definition of an AI Hazard. It is not Complementary Information because the main focus is not on a response to a past incident but on the potential for harm. It is not unrelated because the AI system is central to the issue.

The event describes how OpenAI’s GPT-4o voice synthesis feature used a voice nearly identical to Scarlett Johansson’s despite her explicit refusal to license her voice. This unauthorized use of her likeness constitutes a violation of her rights (publicity/IP), causing direct harm. Johansson’s legal action and OpenAI’s suspension of the voice reflect concrete consequences of the AI system’s misuse. Therefore, this is an AI Incident.

The AI system (ChatGPT’s voice synthesis) directly caused harm by infringing on Johansson’s publicity and likeness rights. This constitutes a violation of fundamental and intellectual property rights, triggering her legal action and OpenAI’s apology and retraction. As an actual harm caused by AI use, it qualifies as an AI Incident.

An AI system (OpenAI’s voice assistant “Sky”) was used in a way that directly infringed Johansson’s personal and likely intellectual property rights by mimicking her voice without permission. This unauthorized use caused harm and resulted in legal action and the feature’s takedown, constituting an AI Incident under rights violations.

OpenAI’s AI system directly used voice-cloning to create a speaker nearly identical to Johansson’s without permission, violating her rights of publicity and causing reputational/human rights harm. This is a realized harm from an AI system’s misuse, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The event describes an AI system (ChatGPT’s synthetic voice model) whose use has directly led to a violation of an individual’s rights (unauthorized imitation of Scarlett Johansson’s voice), meeting the criteria for harm under intellectual property and publicity rights. Thus, it is an AI Incident.

The event involves an AI system (ChatGPT’s voice assistant) whose use directly led to a violation of an individual’s legal and publicity rights—constituting realized harm through unauthorized impersonation. This meets the definition of an AI Incident (violation of intellectual property/publicity rights).

The dispute involves an AI system (ChatGPT’s voice assistant) whose use directly led to a claimed violation of Johansson’s rights (unauthorized voice cloning). This constitutes an actual harm—an IP/personal rights infringement caused by the AI system’s deployment—so it meets the definition of an AI Incident.

An AI system (the Sky voice generator) was used to create a voice that closely resembled Scarlett Johansson’s, and this use without consent constitutes a violation of her intellectual property and personality rights. The harm (unauthorized imitation of a person’s voice) has materialized and led to legal and reputational consequences, making this an AI Incident.

An AI system (ChatGPT’s ‘Sky’ voice) was deployed in production and allegedly infringed Johansson’s publicity/intellectual property rights by mimicking her voice without authorization, causing a legal rights violation (harm). This is a direct harm from AI use, fitting the AI Incident definition.

The article describes a realized harm caused by an AI system—the unauthorized use of Johansson’s voice likeness in OpenAI’s ChatGPT (‘Sky’ voice) after she explicitly refused to license it. This constitutes a violation of her personal and IP rights, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The article reports an instance where an AI system (ChatGPT’s voice synthesis) allegedly infringed Johansson’s voice rights—an intellectual property/personality rights violation. This is a realized harm stemming from the AI’s use, so it qualifies as an AI Incident under OECD definitions.

Although the article recounts actual incidents of AI misuse (unauthorized voice synthesis) and a court ruling, its primary focus is on the legal and policy responses—lawyer letters, court decisions, regulatory gaps, and calls for new legislation. This fits the definition of Complementary Information, as it provides follow-up context and governance developments related to AI incidents rather than documenting a new primary harm or warning of a new hazard.

OpenAI’s ChatGPT-4o voice mode “Sky” is accused of closely mimicking Scarlett Johansson’s voice without her consent, leading her to retain lawyers and demand that OpenAI cease the use. This is a direct harm—violating Johansson’s rights of publicity and potentially breaching intellectual property laws—stemming from the use of an AI system.

The AI system’s development and use directly led to a violation of Johansson’s personal and intellectual property rights (a clear harm to her legal rights). This is not merely potential or background information but a concrete incident of unauthorized voice cloning by an AI system, so it qualifies as an AI Incident.

An AI system (ChatGPT’s Sky voice) is alleged to have directly infringed Johansson’s voice rights—an intellectual property and personal rights violation—triggering her anger and legal threats. This is a realized harm caused by the AI’s deployment.

An AI-powered voice synthesis feature in ChatGPT (“Sky” mode) is alleged to have been created by unlawfully imitating Scarlett Johansson’s voice. This constitutes a direct violation of her portrait/publicity rights and potentially copyright. The AI system’s deployment caused actual harm to Johansson’s rights, and OpenAI’s subsequent agreement to suspend the “Sky” mode confirms the incident’s materialization. Therefore, it meets the criteria for an AI Incident (violation of human rights/intellectual property).

The incident involves an AI system’s use (ChatGPT’s TTS feature) that directly led to a violation of Johansson’s personal and intellectual property rights when OpenAI deployed a synthetic voice strikingly similar to hers after she had refused to license her voice. This realized harm to her rights classifies it as an AI Incident.

An AI system (ChatGPT’s voice feature) directly produced synthetic audio that impersonates Johansson’s voice without consent, constituting a violation of her intellectual property and publicity rights. OpenAI’s use and release of this voice caused harm by misappropriating her likeness, and thus is an AI incident.

An AI system’s development and use directly caused a violation of Johansson’s intellectual property and personality rights. Although no physical harm occurred, the unauthorized replication of her voice constitutes an infringement of rights under harm category (c), making this an AI Incident.

The incident involves a generative AI system (GPT-4o) whose use directly led to a violation of Johansson’s personal and intellectual property rights (unauthorized voice imitation). This constitutes an actual AI-driven harm rather than a potential risk or mere update, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

While it involves alleged misuse of an AI system (voice generation without consent), the piece centers on the ensuing legal dispute, industry reactions, and rights-protection dialogue rather than documenting a concrete, realized harm or lawsuit outcome. It provides context on governance and emerging standards, fitting the definition of Complementary Information.

An AI system (OpenAI’s ChatGPT/Sora) generated a voice impression closely mimicking Scarlett Johansson’s performance, leading her to accuse OpenAI of unauthorized use and infringement on her right of publicity. This is a direct violation of her individual rights (a subset of human rights/intellectual property rights) arising from an AI’s use, constituting an AI Incident under the framework.

This is an actual misuse of an AI system (voice-cloning/deepfake) that directly impersonated and harmed Johansson’s personal and publicity rights, constituting a violation of her human and intellectual property rights. The harm has materialized, making this an AI Incident.

The article describes the unauthorized use of AI deepfake technology by OpenAI to replicate Johansson’s voice, constituting a violation of her personal and intellectual property rights. This use of an AI system directly led to harm (infringement of rights and emotional distress), meeting the criteria for an AI Incident.

An AI-generated voice in a deployed system allegedly infringed Johansson’s rights by mimicking her voice without consent, prompting legal action and remediation. This constitutes a realized violation of intellectual property/personality rights enabled by an AI system.

Scarlett Johansson alleges that OpenAI’s AI system directly used a voice matching her likeness without consent. This constitutes a realized harm–a potential violation of her personal and intellectual property rights under the use of an AI system. The alleged unauthorized use and subsequent takedown response represent an AI Incident.

The article describes an actual incident in which an AI system’s output (the “Sky” voice assistant) appears to infringe on an actress’s voice likeness without consent, triggering legal action for violation of her intellectual property and personality rights. This constitutes realized harm (unauthorized use of protected voice likeness), fitting the AI Incident category (human rights/intellectual property violation).

The piece does not document a confirmed AI-caused harm or violation, nor does it describe an actual incident or malfunction. Instead, it provides updates and context on legal disputes, corporate responses, and broader governance discussions around AI-generated content and copyright, fitting the definition of Complementary Information.

An AI system (ChatGPT-4o’s voice feature) was used in a way that allegedly infringed Johansson’s voice/publicity rights, prompting legal action and real harm (violation of intellectual property and personal rights). This is a direct harm from the use of an AI system, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

An AI system (ChatGPT’s new voice feature) was released that closely duplicated Johansson’s distinctive voice without her permission, constituting a violation of her intellectual property and personal rights. This misuse of an AI-generated voice has directly led to a legal complaint and reputational harm, meeting the criteria for an AI Incident (violation of rights under category (c)).

The event describes how OpenAI’s AI system (ChatGPT’s new voice character) used a voice nearly identical to Scarlett Johansson’s despite her refusing permission twice. This constitutes a violation of her rights (intellectual property/publicity rights), causing harm (legal dispute). The AI system’s use of her likeness directly led to the incident and legal response, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The event describes the deployment of an AI system (OpenAI’s voice model in GPT-4o) whose outputs (the “Sky” voice) are alleged to directly mimic Johansson’s voice, thereby violating her publicity and image rights. This constitutes an actual harm—an alleged intellectual property/right-of-publicity infringement—resulting from the AI’s use and is thus classified as an AI Incident.

An AI system’s development and use (the “Sky” voice assistant) directly led to a violation of Johansson’s rights through unauthorized voice likeness. This is a realized harm (rights infringement) attributable to the AI system, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

An AI system (ChatGPT’s voice synthesis) was used in production to generate a voice nearly identical to a real person’s without consent. This has directly led to a claim of illegal use of Johansson’s voice, representing an actual harm (violation of rights) caused by the AI’s deployment. Therefore, it qualifies as an AI Incident.

The incident involves direct misuse of an AI-driven text-to-speech feature that allegedly cloned Johansson’s voice without permission, constituting a violation of her intellectual property and personality rights. OpenAI has paused the disputed voice model but the unauthorized replication of her voice for a deployed AI product is an actual harm under the framework (rights breach).

OpenAI’s generative-AI voice feature has already caused a real rights infringement claim by Johansson’s legal team, constituting a direct violation of intellectual property and personal likeness rights. This harm has occurred, triggering OpenAI’s immediate remedial action (suspension of the voice) and legal exposure. Hence, it is an AI Incident.

An actual harm occurred: the AI system’s developers deployed a voice model that closely resembles Johansson’s voice without permission, raising claims of unauthorized use of her likeness and intellectual property rights. This constitutes a violation of legal rights directly caused by the AI system’s deployment, fitting the AI Incident category.

The event describes the unauthorized use of Johansson’s voice likeness via an AI system (ChatGPT’s voice-cloning), constituting a direct violation of her rights. This misuse of an AI generative model has already occurred and caused harm (personal/publicity rights infringement), making it an AI Incident.

An AI system (GPT-4o’s speech model) has already caused a real dispute over unauthorized imitation of a real person’s voice, leading to legal action and rights claims. This constitutes harm (violation of intellectual property/publicity rights) directly stemming from the AI’s outputs.

This is a direct misuse of an AI system’s capabilities—using generated speech to imitate a real individual’s unique voice without permission, infringing on her personal and intellectual property rights. The harm (violation of Johansson’s rights and potential reputational/income loss) has already occurred, making this an AI Incident.

This is a realized harm involving an AI system’s use—OpenAI’s generative speech model—to create a voice that infringes Johansson’s personal and intellectual property rights. The dispute led to removal of the voice, fitting the definition of an AI Incident under violations of rights and obligations.

An AI-powered voice synthesis feature directly led to a breach of Johansson’s rights by mimicking her voice without permission. This is a realized harm—a violation of intellectual property and personal rights—caused by the development and use of an AI system, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

OpenAI’s AI system has allegedly produced and deployed a voice model that infringes Johansson’s personality and intellectual property rights, constituting an actual rights violation caused by the AI’s outputs. This meets the definition of an AI Incident (violation of human rights/intellectual property obligations).

An AI-powered voice model (‘Sky’ in ChatGPT) was deployed and is alleged to have imitated Johansson’s unique voice without permission, constituting a violation of her personal and intellectual property rights. That unauthorized use of an AI system’s outputs has already generated legal claims and company action (suspension of the voice), meaning harm has materialized. This fits the definition of an AI Incident (violation of rights under category c).

The event describes an AI system (ChatGPT) whose new voice feature allegedly infringes Scarlett Johansson’s voice rights—an unauthorized use of her likeness. This constitutes a direct violation of personal and intellectual property rights caused by the AI system’s deployment, meeting the criteria for an AI Incident.

This is a direct claim of unauthorized use of a celebrity’s voice by an AI system, constituting a violation of her personal and intellectual property rights. Harm (rights infringement and reputational harm) has occurred, and OpenAI has responded by suspending the voice, making this an AI incident rather than a potential hazard or merely complementary information.

The article describes a concrete event in which an AI system’s output (the Sky voice in ChatGPT) directly infringed on Scarlett Johansson’s rights, prompting her to send a lawyer’s letter and OpenAI to suspend use of the voice. This is a realized harm—unauthorized use of a person’s likeness via AI—constituting an AI Incident under the rights‐violation category.

The article describes actual misuse of a generative AI system to create and deploy a synthetic voice that infringes on Scarlett Johansson’s (and other actors’) likeness and voice rights, prompting legal action and removal of the voice model. This constitutes a direct violation of personal and IP rights by an AI system, meeting the criteria for an AI Incident under OECD definitions.

The article describes a specific wrongful use of an AI text-to-speech system that directly infringed Scarlett Johansson’s personal and intellectual property rights by producing a voice nearly identical to hers without permission. This misuse led to legal action and the removal of the voice, constituting an AI Incident under violations of human rights and IP rights.

An AI-powered voice generation model directly led to a violation of Johansson’s personal and intellectual property rights by using her voice likeness without consent. The incident describes actual harm and legal dispute, meeting the criteria for an AI Incident.

The article involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice synthesis feature) and its use. However, the event centers on public perception and a precautionary suspension rather than any realized or potential harm such as rights violations, health or safety issues, or other harms defined in the framework. There is no indication that the AI system's use has directly or indirectly caused harm, nor that it poses a plausible risk of harm. Therefore, this is not an AI Incident or AI Hazard. The article mainly provides an update on OpenAI's response to concerns, which fits the definition of Complementary Information.

The event involves an AI system (the synthetic voice 'Sky') whose use has raised concerns about resemblance to a celebrity's voice, leading OpenAI to pause its use. There is no report of actual harm such as rights violations or injury, only a concern about likeness and ethical implications. This fits the definition of Complementary Information, as it provides context on AI system use and company response to a potential ethical issue without describing an AI Incident or AI Hazard.

The event involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice assistant Sky) and concerns about unauthorized use of a voice, which could be a violation of intellectual property or personal rights. However, the article focuses on OpenAI's denial and evidence to refute intentional copying, with no confirmed harm or legal ruling reported. Thus, it does not meet the threshold for an AI Incident. It also does not describe a plausible future harm scenario beyond the current dispute, so it is not an AI Hazard. The article mainly provides additional context and updates on the dispute, fitting the definition of Complementary Information.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (OpenAI's GPT-4o with AI-generated voices). The use of the 'Sky' voice, which closely resembles Scarlett Johansson's voice without her consent, constitutes a violation of intellectual property and personal rights. This harm has materialized as Johansson has taken legal action and OpenAI has removed the voice option. The AI system's use directly led to this rights violation, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The event is not merely a potential risk or a complementary update but a realized harm involving the AI system's outputs causing legal and ethical issues.

The event involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice feature) and concerns about voice likeness, which touches on intellectual property and personal rights. However, the article does not report any actual harm, injury, or legal violation having occurred; rather, it describes a precautionary measure taken by OpenAI in response to user feedback. Therefore, this is not an AI Incident or AI Hazard but rather a complementary update about AI system management and governance.

The article centers on a controversy regarding the use of a voice in an AI system that allegedly resembles a celebrity's voice without permission. While this raises potential issues related to intellectual property rights and personal rights, the article does not confirm that any legal violation or harm has actually occurred. It mainly provides statements and evidence from OpenAI and the agent to counter the allegations. Therefore, this is a situation where potential harm or rights violations could arise but are not confirmed or realized in the article. Hence, it is best classified as Complementary Information, as it provides context and updates on an ongoing dispute rather than reporting a confirmed AI Incident or a clear AI Hazard.

The article discusses AI safety concerns and controversies related to OpenAI's technology, including the disbanding of a risk mitigation team and a dispute over voice likeness. However, it does not describe any realized harm or incident caused by the AI system, nor does it present a clear plausible future harm scenario. The CEO's statements and the apology are responses to ongoing concerns, making this a case of Complementary Information that provides context and updates on AI safety and governance issues rather than reporting an AI Incident or AI Hazard.

The AI system (ChatGPT's synthetic voice 'Sky') is explicitly involved and its use has directly led to a controversy involving the unauthorized mimicry of a celebrity's voice, which implicates intellectual property and personal rights violations. The event describes realized harm in terms of legal and rights concerns, with the AI system's outputs being the cause. OpenAI's response to disable the voice further confirms the recognition of harm. Hence, this is an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The article describes a situation where an AI-generated voice closely resembling a real person's voice was used without permission, which constitutes a violation of intellectual property rights, a form of harm under the AI Incident definition (c). The harm has materialized as public controversy and reputational damage, and the AI system's role is pivotal in causing this harm. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event clearly involves an AI system (OpenAI's voice synthesis technology) and its use has directly led to a violation of rights, specifically the unauthorized use of a celebrity's voice likeness. This constitutes a breach of obligations intended to protect intellectual property and personal rights. Since the harm (violation of rights) has already occurred and is central to the event, this qualifies as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The article involves an AI system (ChatGPT with voice synthesis capabilities) and its use. However, there is no reported harm or violation resulting from the use of the 'Sky' voice. The suspension is a proactive response to user concerns about voice similarity, not due to any incident causing harm. The content focuses on OpenAI's explanation, the voice creation process, and future plans, which aligns with providing additional context and updates rather than reporting a new incident or hazard. Hence, it qualifies as Complementary Information.

The content involves multiple AI systems and developments, such as OpenAI's ChatGPT voice features, AI driving systems by XPeng, and new AI models by startups. However, the article does not describe any realized harm or incident resulting from these AI systems. The OpenAI voice similarity issue is addressed by the company and the involved individual, indicating a response rather than an ongoing incident. Other items are product announcements or corporate updates without harm implications. Therefore, the article fits the definition of Complementary Information, as it provides supporting context and updates about AI systems and ecosystem developments without reporting new AI Incidents or Hazards.

The event involves the use of an AI system (ChatGPT's synthetic voice feature) and concerns about the ethical implications of voice synthesis that closely resembles a real person's voice without consent. However, there is no indication that any harm (such as injury, rights violations, or other significant harms) has occurred or that the AI system malfunctioned. The issue is about potential ethical misuse and public concern, leading OpenAI to take precautionary measures. Therefore, this is best classified as Complementary Information, as it provides an update on AI system use and governance responses to ethical concerns, rather than describing an AI Incident or AI Hazard.

The AI system (OpenAI's synthetic voice technology) is explicitly involved, as it generated a voice closely resembling a real person's unique voice without consent. This has led to a legal challenge and public controversy, indicating a violation of intellectual property or personal rights. The harm is indirect but real, as it concerns rights violations and potential misuse of AI-generated content. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event clearly involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice synthesis feature) whose use has directly led to harm, specifically the unauthorized use of Scarlett Johansson's voice likeness without consent. This is a violation of intellectual property and personal rights, which fits the definition of an AI Incident. OpenAI's action to disable the voice confirms recognition of the harm caused. The harm is realized, not just potential, and the AI system's role is pivotal in causing this harm.

The article involves AI systems (AI voice synthesis and AI safety research) and discusses significant governance and ethical issues, including a legal dispute over voice cloning and failure to meet safety commitments. However, it does not report a direct or indirect harm caused by the AI systems (such as injury, rights violations with confirmed harm, or community/environmental harm). The dispute and broken promises raise concerns and provide important context for AI governance and trustworthiness but do not constitute a new AI Incident or AI Hazard. Hence, the classification as Complementary Information is appropriate.

The article mentions AI systems explicitly, such as ChatGPT's voice feature, XPeng's AI driving system, and Microsoft's AI-powered PC features, confirming AI system involvement. However, none of the events described involve direct or indirect harm caused by AI system development, use, or malfunction. The OpenAI voice issue is a legal and ethical concern but does not report harm caused by the AI system's outputs or malfunction. The other AI-related news items are product announcements, corporate updates, or ecosystem developments without harm or plausible future harm. Hence, the article fits the definition of Complementary Information, as it provides supporting data and context about AI systems and their ecosystem without describing a new AI Incident or AI Hazard.

The event involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice feature powered by GPT-4o) and its use. However, there is no indication that the AI system's use or malfunction has directly or indirectly caused any harm such as injury, rights violations, or other significant harms. The issue is about voice similarity and user perception, with OpenAI taking a precautionary measure by suspending the voice option. This does not constitute an AI Incident or AI Hazard as no harm or plausible future harm is described. The article mainly provides contextual and update information about the AI system and OpenAI's response, fitting the definition of Complementary Information.

The event involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice synthesis feature) and its use, which led to a public dispute over voice likeness and consent. However, there is no indication that an AI Incident occurred, as no direct or indirect harm such as legal rights violations or injury has been established or reported. Nor is this an AI Hazard, since the event does not describe a plausible future harm scenario but rather a controversy and subsequent mitigation (removal of the voice). The article mainly provides updates on the issue, OpenAI's response, and the broader implications for personal rights and AI governance, fitting the definition of Complementary Information.

The article mentions multiple AI systems and developments, such as OpenAI's ChatGPT voice feature, XPeng's AI driving system, and Microsoft's Copilot + PC, but none of these are linked to any realized harm or credible risk of harm. The OpenAI voice issue is a dispute over voice similarity and intellectual property concerns, with OpenAI taking remedial action, but no harm such as rights violations or injury is reported. The other items are product announcements or company plans without any indication of harm or plausible future harm. Therefore, the article fits the definition of Complementary Information, as it provides updates and context about AI systems and ecosystem developments without describing an AI Incident or AI Hazard.

The event involves an AI system (an AI voice model) whose use has raised concerns about similarity to a known actress's voice, potentially implicating privacy or intellectual property issues. However, the article does not report any actual harm or legal violation occurring, only a precautionary suspension by OpenAI. Therefore, it does not meet the criteria for an AI Incident or AI Hazard but rather is a governance or ethical response to a potential issue, fitting the definition of Complementary Information.

An AI system (ChatGPT's voice synthesis) is involved, and the event concerns the use of AI-generated voice that allegedly resembles a celebrity's voice, raising potential intellectual property or personality rights issues. However, no actual legal action or harm has been reported yet, only an accusation and internal clarifications. Therefore, this situation represents a plausible risk of harm (violation of rights) but not a realized harm incident. Hence, it qualifies as an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident or Complementary Information.

The article describes an AI system (ChatGPT's voice synthesis feature) and a controversy arising from its use, specifically the similarity of an AI-generated voice to a celebrity's voice and the AI's conversational style. However, there is no indication that this has caused direct or indirect harm as defined by the framework (such as injury, rights violations, or significant community harm). The company's suspension of the voice and explanation are responses to public concern rather than evidence of an AI Incident or Hazard. Therefore, this is best classified as Complementary Information, as it provides context and updates about AI system use and governance without describing a new incident or hazard.

The event clearly involves an AI system (GPT-4o) using a voice that closely mimics a real person's voice, leading to a direct harm: the violation of Scarlett Johansson's personal and intellectual property rights. Johansson's legal response and OpenAI's removal of the voice confirm the harm has materialized. The AI system's use of this voice without consent is a breach of rights, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident under violations of human rights or intellectual property rights. The event is not merely a potential risk or complementary information but a concrete incident with direct harm caused by the AI system's use.

The event clearly involves an AI system (ChatGPT's AI voice feature) whose use has directly led to a violation of rights (intellectual property and personal rights of Scarlett Johansson) as evidenced by her legal protest and OpenAI's response to stop using the contested voice. The AI system's development and deployment caused harm through unauthorized voice likeness, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident under the framework. The harm is realized, not just potential, and relates to breach of obligations under applicable law protecting personal and intellectual property rights.

The AI system's use of a synthetic voice closely resembling Scarlett Johansson's voice without permission constitutes a violation of intellectual property rights, which is a breach of obligations under applicable law protecting such rights. The actress has taken legal action, indicating realized harm. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to the direct involvement of the AI system in causing a rights violation.

The event clearly involves an AI system (ChatGPT with AI-generated synthetic voices). The use of a synthetic voice that closely resembles Scarlett Johansson's voice without her consent constitutes a violation of her personal rights and possibly intellectual property rights. This has led to legal action and public outcry, indicating realized harm. The AI system's use directly led to this harm, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The subsequent suspension and apology by OpenAI are responses to this incident but do not negate the occurrence of harm. Therefore, this event is classified as an AI Incident due to the direct violation of rights caused by the AI system's use.

The article describes how OpenAI used Scarlett Johansson's voice likeness in an AI voice assistant without her permission, which is a clear violation of her rights. The AI system's use of her voice directly led to harm in the form of emotional distress and legal disputes. The involvement of an AI system (Sky voice assistant) and the resulting harm meet the criteria for an AI Incident under violations of rights. There is no indication that this is merely a potential risk or a complementary update; the harm has already occurred.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (OpenAI's GPT-4o with voice synthesis capabilities) whose use has led to a claim of unauthorized imitation of a celebrity's voice, which is a violation of intellectual property and personal rights. This fits the definition of an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly led to a breach of obligations intended to protect intellectual property and personal rights. The fact that OpenAI has paused the voice and legal actions are underway further supports the classification as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information. The article also discusses broader legal and regulatory responses, but the primary focus is on the realized harm from the AI system's use.

The event clearly involves an AI system (ChatGPT with synthetic voice capabilities) whose use has directly led to harm in the form of unauthorized use of a person's voice likeness, infringing on personal and possibly intellectual property rights. The actress's legal response and OpenAI's suspension of the voice indicate recognition of this harm. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to the realized violation of rights caused by the AI system's use.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (ChatGPT 4.0's voice assistant) that generated a voice allegedly very similar to Scarlett Johansson's without her consent, which constitutes a violation of intellectual property and personal rights. The harm is realized as it has led to legal action and public controversy. OpenAI's suspension of the voice feature further confirms the incident's seriousness. This fits the definition of an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly led to a breach of rights and associated harms.

The event centers on the use of an AI system (voice synthesis technology) that generated a voice closely resembling Scarlett Johansson's without her permission. This implicates potential violations of rights related to personal identity and likeness, which fall under intellectual property and personality rights protections. Although no explicit legal action or harm has been reported yet, the unauthorized use and public controversy indicate a breach of obligations intended to protect fundamental rights. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to the realized violation of rights through the AI system's use.

The event describes the use of an AI system (OpenAI's synthetic voice technology) that has produced a voice nearly identical to Scarlett Johansson's without authorization, leading to a legal challenge. This constitutes a violation of intellectual property and personal rights, which falls under harm category (c) "Violations of human rights or a breach of obligations under the applicable law intended to protect fundamental, labor, and intellectual property rights." The AI system's use directly led to this harm, making it an AI Incident. The suspension and apology are responses but do not negate the occurrence of harm.

The article involves AI systems (AI voice synthesis) and AI safety efforts but does not report any realized harm (injury, rights violations, property/community/environmental harm) caused by AI system malfunction or misuse. The failure to allocate promised compute resources to safety research is a governance and ethical issue, not a direct or indirect cause of harm. The voice likeness dispute is a legal/ethical controversy but does not confirm an AI incident causing harm or a hazard of plausible future harm. Hence, the article provides complementary information about AI ecosystem governance and trustworthiness rather than reporting an AI Incident or AI Hazard.

The event involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice assistant) but does not describe any harm or plausible future harm resulting from its development or use. The discussion is about voice similarity and company intentions, which is informational and contextual rather than describing an incident or hazard. Therefore, it qualifies as Complementary Information, providing context and response to public concerns without reporting an AI Incident or Hazard.

The article involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice synthesis) and its use, but no harm has occurred or is reported. The controversy is about the voice similarity to a famous actress and the AI's conversational style, which raised ethical and public relations concerns. OpenAI's suspension of the voice and explanation are responses to these concerns. Since no harm or plausible future harm is described, and the main focus is on the company's response and background information, this fits the category of Complementary Information rather than Incident or Hazard.

An AI system (ChatGPT's voice synthesis) is involved, and the event concerns the use of an AI-generated voice that closely resembles a real person's voice, raising potential legal and rights issues. However, the article does not report any actual harm occurring yet, such as unauthorized commercial use or damage to the person. The event is about ongoing discussions and concerns, not a realized incident or direct harm. Therefore, it is best classified as Complementary Information, as it provides context and updates on AI system use and related societal/legal concerns without describing a concrete AI Incident or AI Hazard.

The event involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice mode) and its use, but no harm has occurred or is reported. The controversy is about voice similarity and perceived 'flattering' behavior, which does not constitute a violation or harm under the definitions. OpenAI's response and explanation about voice actor selection and compensation is a governance and transparency measure, enhancing understanding of AI development and addressing public concerns. Hence, this is Complementary Information rather than an Incident or Hazard.

The article describes a situation where OpenAI's AI system uses a voice very similar to Scarlett Johansson's without her explicit consent, which could constitute a violation of her rights, particularly intellectual property or personality rights. This involves the use of an AI system and a dispute about unauthorized use, which is a direct concern related to AI harms. Since the harm (violation of rights) is alleged and the AI system's use is central, this qualifies as an AI Incident.

The article describes a failure in the development and use of AI systems related to safety oversight (the under-resourcing of the super alignment team) and potential unauthorized use of a person's voice likeness in AI-generated content, which implicates violations of intellectual property and personality rights. The failure to provide promised resources to the safety team indirectly increases the risk of AI systems being unsafe or uncontrolled, while the voice cloning dispute involves possible rights violations. Since the harms (team dissolution due to underfunding and potential rights violations) have already occurred or are ongoing, and the AI system's development and use are central to these issues, this qualifies as an AI Incident.

An AI system (ChatGPT’s voice synthesis) is being used in a way that allegedly violates Johansson’s rights (unauthorized use of her voice), which constitutes a realized harm. This misuse of AI-generated voice has directly led to legal claims and a suspension of the feature. Therefore, it is an AI Incident.

This event involves an AI system (the voice-generation component of ChatGPT) whose use directly infringed Johansson’s personal and intellectual property rights by cloning her voice without permission. That constitutes realized harm (violation of rights) caused by the AI system’s outputs.

This is a realized event where an AI system (voice-cloning model) directly led to the unauthorized use of Johansson’s likeness, infringing her rights. That constitutes an AI Incident under the framework’s definition of harm to human rights/intellectual property.

An AI system (ChatGPT’s voice feature) was used without consent to mimic Johansson’s voice, constituting an unauthorized use of her likeness and a violation of her personal/intellectual property rights. This is a realized harm directly caused by an AI application, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The event describes an AI system’s use (the voice of ChatGPT/Sky) that has directly led to an alleged violation of Johansson’s image and intellectual property rights. This constitutes a realized harm to a person’s rights under the definitions provided, so it is classified as an AI Incident.

The article describes how OpenAI’s virtual assistant deployed a synthetic voice strikingly similar to Scarlett Johansson’s, despite her explicitly declining permission. This unauthorized use of her likeness constitutes a violation of her legal and personal rights, directly caused by the AI system’s deployment and leading to legal action and reputational harm. As the harm (rights infringement) has materialized, this qualifies as an AI Incident.

The accusation of copying Scarlett Johansson's voice for ChatGPT involves an AI system (ChatGPT with voice features) and suggests a possible violation of intellectual property rights, which qualifies as harm under the AI Incident definition. Since the article centers on the accusation itself, which implies realized harm (unauthorized use), this should be classified as an AI Incident. The other content about leadership changes and product updates does not affect this classification.

The piece is focused on a legal and policy dispute over voice likeness and on OpenAI’s public response and remediation steps. It does not report a realized injury, rights violation, or operational failure resulting directly from the AI, nor does it detail a credible future hazard beyond the context of the current debate. Instead, it updates stakeholders on an ongoing matter and the company’s governance actions, fitting the definition of Complementary Information.

The article describes a concrete misuse of an AI system—ChatGPT’s voice synthesis feature—where Scarlett Johansson’s voice likeness was allegedly copied without permission, infringing on her rights. This constitutes an AI Incident because the AI’s use has directly led to a violation of intellectual property and personal rights.

OpenAI used an AI-based voice synthesis feature that directly infringed on Johansson’s image and voice rights, constituting a violation of intellectual property and personal identity protections. This use of AI led to tangible harm (rights violation), and OpenAI took corrective action by removing the voice, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The article describes a realized harm: OpenAI’s AI-generated voice allegedly infringed Johansson’s personal and intellectual property rights. Her legal complaint and OpenAI’s suspension of the “Sky” voice directly stem from an AI system’s use, constituting a rights violation. Therefore it is an AI Incident.

An AI system (the Sky voice generator in ChatGPT) was used in a way that directly infringed on an individual’s voice identity, causing personal and legal harm. Johansson’s forced removal of the voice and OpenAI’s formal apology and suspension of the voice demonstrate this is a realized incident of AI-driven rights violation.

An AI text-to-speech system (Sky voice in ChatGPT) was used without authorization to mimic Johansson’s voice, constituting a violation of her rights. This misuse of an AI system directly led to harm (unauthorized use of likeness), satisfying the criteria for an AI Incident.

An AI system (the Sky voice generator) directly led to a rights violation by replicating Johansson’s voice without permission. OpenAI’s suspension of the voice and public apology acknowledge the harm and breach of obligations protecting Johansson’s likeness, fitting the definition of an AI Incident under “violations of human rights or a breach of obligations under applicable law intended to protect ... intellectual property rights.”

An AI system’s development and use (ChatGPT’s text-to-speech voice) has directly led to a violation of Johansson’s publicity and intellectual property rights, resulting in real-world legal action and reputational harm. This constitutes an AI Incident under OECD definitions (violation of human and IP rights).

The article describes how OpenAI’s voice ‘Sky’ for ChatGPT was allegedly developed to mimic Scarlett Johansson’s voice without her consent, prompting her legal challenge. This is a direct harm—unauthorized use of her likeness and potential violation of her rights—caused by an AI system’s deployment. Thus, it qualifies as an AI Incident under intellectual property and personal rights violations.

The article describes an AI system (GPT Voice/Sky) whose development and use allegedly led directly to a violation of Scarlett Johansson’s intellectual property and personal rights. This constitutes actual harm through unauthorized use of her voice, fitting the definition of an AI Incident involving violations of human and copyright rights.

An AI system (OpenAI’s voice assistant) is at the center of a dispute over unauthorized use of a person’s voice, constituting a violation of her personality and intellectual property rights. The harm has already occurred (use of her voice likeness without consent) and is directly tied to the AI system’s deployment, making this an AI Incident.

This is a realized harm stemming from the use of an AI system’s voice-generation feature without the individual’s consent, raising violations of Johansson’s image and intellectual property rights. The AI system’s deployment directly led to a dispute and removal of the voice model, so it constitutes an AI Incident under rights violations.

An AI system (ChatGPT’s voice model “Sky”) was used in production to generate a voice that closely resembled Scarlett Johansson’s, leading to a clear harm—unauthorized use of her voice. This unauthorized copying constitutes a breach of her rights, making it an AI Incident rather than a potential hazard or general news.

An AI-powered system (ChatGPT’s voice assistant) is alleged to have directly violated Johansson’s rights by cloning her voice without authorization, constituting a realized harm (violation of intellectual property and personal image rights). This meets the criteria for an AI Incident under category (c).

The article describes a concrete dispute over an AI system’s use of a voice clone that allegedly infringes on Scarlett Johansson’s personal and intellectual property rights. This represents actual harm (unauthorized appropriation of identity/voice, potential deepfake misuse) directly linked to an AI system already deployed, fitting the criteria for an AI Incident under violations of individual rights.

An AI system (ChatGPT’s TTS feature) was used in a manner that allegedly infringed Johansson’s rights of publicity and intellectual property by cloning her voice without consent. This constitutes a realized harm—violation of individual rights—directly tied to the AI system’s use. Therefore it is an AI Incident.

The piece does not document a realized AI-caused harm or confirmed incident, nor does it warn of a future hazard; instead it provides background, legal analysis, and commentary on an existing dispute over AI voice usage. It thus serves as complementary information enhancing understanding of potential rights issues in AI voice synthesis.

This event involves the use of an AI-generated voice that allegedly infringed on Johansson’s personal and intellectual property rights. The development and deployment of the ChatGPT “Sky” voice directly led to a real dispute over unauthorized use of her voice, constituting a violation of rights under applicable law. Therefore, it is an AI Incident.

An AI system (ChatGPT’s voice feature) has been used in a manner that allegedly infringes Johansson’s rights by creating a voice ‘Sky’ nearly identical to hers without permission. This constitutes a violation of intellectual property and personality rights—a direct harm caused by the AI system’s development and deployment. Therefore, it is classified as an AI Incident.

An AI TTS system (Sky voice in ChatGPT) was deployed and directly led to the unauthorized copying of Johansson’s voice likeness, causing reputational and personal‐rights harm. This constitutes a realized violation of a fundamental right via AI, so it is classified as an AI Incident.

ChatGPT 4.0 deployed a synthesized voice so similar to Johansson’s that users couldn’t tell the difference, infringing her image and voice rights. This is a direct misuse of an AI system’s output leading to violation of individual rights, meeting the definition of an AI Incident.

An AI system’s development and use (ChatGPT’s TTS “Sky” voice) directly led to alleged infringement of Scarlett Johansson’s intellectual property and publicity rights. This is a violation of rights arising from an AI system’s outputs, meeting the definition of an AI Incident under category (c).

An AI system (ChatGPT 4.0) is directly implicated in copying Johansson’s voice without authorization, leading to a violation of her rights. This constitutes a realized harm under human and intellectual property rights, so it is classified as an AI Incident.

The AI system’s development and use directly led to a violation of Johansson’s rights of publicity and voice likeness—an intellectual property and personal rights harm. This is a realized harm caused by an AI-generated voice, meeting the definition of an AI Incident under human rights/intellectual property violation.

The event involves the use of voice-cloning AI (ChatGPT’s “Sky” voice) without Johansson’s permission, directly infringing on her rights. This realized harm—unauthorized cloning and deployment of her voice via an AI system—fits the definition of an AI Incident (violation of human and intellectual property rights).

While the underlying unauthorized use of Johansson’s voice by an AI system constituted an AI incident (a violation of rights), this article’s main focus is on the industry and governance response—SAG-AFTRA’s support, legislative advocacy, and OpenAI’s remedial action—rather than describing a new incident or hazard. It therefore qualifies as Complementary Information.

The article does not describe any realized harm or incident caused by the AI voice system. There is no injury, rights violation, or disruption reported. The event is about managing potential reputational or legal risks related to voice likeness, but no direct or indirect harm has occurred. Therefore, it does not qualify as an AI Incident or AI Hazard. It is best classified as Complementary Information because it provides context on OpenAI's response and ongoing development of AI voice capabilities, enhancing understanding of the AI ecosystem and governance responses.

The article describes a dispute over the alleged unauthorized use of an actress's voice in an AI system (ChatGPT 4.0). This involves the development and use of an AI system that allegedly used a voice similar to Scarlett Johansson's without permission, which could constitute a violation of intellectual property or personality rights, a form of harm under the framework. However, OpenAI denies the claim, stating the voice was developed independently. Since the event concerns an alleged violation of rights due to the AI system's use, it qualifies as an AI Incident related to breach of intellectual property or personality rights.

The event involves an AI system (ChatGPT with a voice interface) whose development and use have led to a violation of individual rights, specifically the unauthorized use of Scarlett Johansson's voice likeness. This constitutes a breach of obligations intended to protect fundamental rights related to personal identity and intellectual property. Since the harm (violation of rights) has already occurred and OpenAI is responding by suspending the voice, this qualifies as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

An AI system (the voice synthesis feature of ChatGPT) was used to generate a voice closely resembling Scarlett Johansson's without her permission. This led to a legal dispute and the removal of the voice, indicating harm related to rights violations (specifically, the unauthorized use of a person's voice likeness). The AI system's use directly led to this harm, qualifying the event as an AI Incident under the framework.

The event describes a direct harm related to the use of an AI system (voice synthesis) that allegedly infringed on Scarlett Johansson's rights by copying her voice without consent. This constitutes a violation of intellectual property and personal rights, which falls under the category of AI Incident as per the framework. The AI system's use directly led to harm (unauthorized use of voice likeness), and legal and remedial actions were taken (removal of the voice).

The AI system (ChatGPT) uses a voice that allegedly infringes on Scarlett Johansson's rights by closely imitating her voice without permission. This constitutes a violation of intellectual property rights, which is a breach of obligations under applicable law protecting such rights. Since the voice was used and led to legal action and the suspension of the voice, this is a realized harm caused by the AI system's use. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident under the category of violations of intellectual property rights.

The article explicitly mentions an AI system (OpenAI's voice profile 'Sky') that uses a voice very similar to Scarlett Johansson's without her permission. This unauthorized use of her voice implicates a violation of rights, specifically intellectual property and personal image rights. Since the AI system's use has directly led to a harm (violation of rights), this qualifies as an AI Incident under the framework, particularly under category (c) violations of human rights or breach of obligations protecting intellectual property rights.

The article describes a controversy involving an AI system's voice that allegedly resembles Scarlett Johansson's voice without her consent. While this raises important issues about intellectual property and personal rights, the article does not report any realized harm such as legal violations or damages caused by the AI system's use. The situation is currently a dispute and a call for clearer legislation, indicating a plausible risk of harm related to rights violations but no confirmed incident. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Hazard, as the AI system's use could plausibly lead to violations of rights or harm to identity protection in the future.

The event describes a change in an AI system's voice interface to address user perceptions about similarity to a celebrity voice. There is no indication of harm caused or potential harm that could plausibly lead to an AI Incident or Hazard. The article focuses on the company's response and clarification, which is an update about the AI system's development and use but does not describe any realized or potential harm. Therefore, this is Complementary Information.

The event involves an AI system (voice synthesis) and its development/use, but no actual harm or violation has been reported. The article focuses on clarifying intentions and legal concerns rather than describing an incident or hazard. Therefore, it does not meet the criteria for an AI Incident or AI Hazard. Instead, it provides complementary information about ongoing societal and legal responses to AI voice technology.

The article involves an AI system (ChatGPT with a generative voice named Sky) and discusses its development and use. However, it does not report any actual harm or incident caused by the AI system. The main focus is on clarifying a misunderstanding and addressing potential copyright concerns, which are not confirmed as violations or harms in this context. Therefore, the event does not meet the criteria for an AI Incident or AI Hazard. Instead, it provides complementary information about the AI system's development and the surrounding discourse on rights and ethics, fitting the definition of Complementary Information.

The article involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice synthesis feature) and its use. However, there is no indication that the AI system's use has directly or indirectly caused harm such as injury, rights violations, or other significant harms. The suspension is a precautionary and responsive measure to user concerns and legal context, but no harm has been reported or occurred. Therefore, this event does not qualify as an AI Incident or AI Hazard. Instead, it is best classified as Complementary Information because it provides context on AI voice feature management, user feedback, and legal considerations, enhancing understanding of AI ecosystem developments.

An AI system (ChatGPT with a voice interface 'Sky') is involved, and its use has directly led to a dispute over the unauthorized or contested use of a voice resembling that of Scarlett Johansson. This implicates potential violations of intellectual property and personal rights, which are covered under the AI Incident definition (c). Although OpenAI denies direct use of Johansson's voice recordings, the deployment of a voice so similar that it caused public and legal backlash indicates harm related to rights violations. The suspension of the voice is a response to this harm. Therefore, this event qualifies as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event describes the use of an AI system (GPT-4o) that generates a voice very similar to Scarlett Johansson's without her consent, raising concerns about rights violations. However, the article does not report any actual harm or legal ruling yet, only the potential for such harm and ongoing legal inquiry. Therefore, this situation represents a plausible risk of harm related to AI use, fitting the definition of an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident. The AI system's use could plausibly lead to violations of intellectual property or personality rights if the issue is not resolved.

An AI system (ChatGPT's voice generation) is involved, and the event stems from its use. However, the article does not describe any direct or indirect harm caused by the AI voice 'Sky' itself, only public concern and a precautionary pause. The actress's legal complaint relates to a different company and incident, not this AI voice. There is no indication of violation or harm caused by the AI voice in ChatGPT. The main focus is on OpenAI's response to public concerns and the broader context of AI voice likeness issues, which fits the definition of Complementary Information rather than an Incident or Hazard.

The event describes the use of an AI system (ChatGPT's voice feature) that produced a voice closely resembling Scarlett Johansson's, which she alleges was done without consent, infringing on her rights. The AI system's use directly led to harm in the form of violation of intellectual property and personal identity rights. OpenAI's suspension of the voice acknowledges the issue. Therefore, this is an AI Incident due to the realized harm involving rights violations caused by the AI system's use.

The article describes an AI system generating a voice that mimics Scarlett Johansson's without her permission, which is a direct violation of her rights to her image and identity. The harm is realized as Johansson is publicly upset, threatening legal action, and OpenAI has suspended the voice. This fits the definition of an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly led to a breach of obligations intended to protect fundamental rights (identity and image rights).

The event explicitly involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice interaction feature Sky) and its use of a voice closely resembling Scarlett Johansson's without her consent, after she declined to participate. This constitutes a violation of rights (individual image and voice rights), which is a recognized harm under the framework. The harm has already occurred as the voice was used and caused distress to Johansson, leading to legal actions and OpenAI's suspension of the voice feature. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to the direct involvement of an AI system causing a violation of rights.

The article explicitly involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice assistant using generative AI). The event concerns the use of a voice that resembles a celebrity's distinctive voice, raising ethical and legal questions about imitation and rights. However, there is no report of actual harm such as violation of rights, injury, or disruption caused by the AI system. The company has proactively suspended the voice to address concerns, indicating a governance and ethical response. This fits the definition of Complementary Information, as it updates on AI system deployment and societal responses without describing a realized or plausible harm incident or hazard.

The event describes the use of an AI system (voice synthesis) that generated a voice very similar to Scarlett Johansson's without her permission, leading to legal action and public controversy. This use of AI directly led to a violation of Johansson's rights, specifically related to identity and intellectual property. The AI system's role is pivotal as it generated the contested voice. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident under the framework because harm (violation of rights) has occurred due to the AI system's use.

The article does not describe any direct or indirect harm caused by the AI system's development or use. The controversy over the voice resemblance and the failed deal with Scarlett Johansson is noted, but no violation or harm has been confirmed or occurred. The concerns about anthropomorphization and potential future legal challenges are speculative and do not constitute an AI Hazard as no plausible immediate harm is described. Therefore, this is best classified as Complementary Information, providing context and societal/governance-related commentary on AI developments and their implications.

The event involves an AI system (OpenAI's vocal assistant) and its use, but there is no indication of any harm caused or plausible harm that could arise from the voice similarity issue. The removal of the voice is a precautionary measure and a response to public perception, not due to any incident of harm or risk. Therefore, this is complementary information about the AI system's development and deployment, not an AI Incident or AI Hazard.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice interface 'Sky') and concerns the alleged unauthorized use of Scarlett Johansson's voice, which constitutes a violation of intellectual property and personal rights. This is a direct harm related to the AI system's use, as the AI's voice feature is claimed to have been developed without consent, leading to harm to the individual's rights. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident under the category of violations of human rights or breach of obligations protecting intellectual property rights. The suspension of the feature is a response but does not negate the incident itself.

The article describes an AI system (ChatGPT 4.0 with a voice assistant named Sky) that uses a voice closely resembling Scarlett Johansson's, which she claims was copied without permission. This raises issues related to intellectual property rights and possibly personal rights. Since the AI system's use has directly led to a legal conflict over unauthorized use of a person's voice, this constitutes a violation of rights under applicable law. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to the breach of intellectual property and personal rights caused by the AI system's use.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (voice models used in ChatGPT) and a direct harm: unauthorized use of Scarlett Johansson's voice likeness, which is a violation of intellectual property and personal rights. The legal action and OpenAI's removal of the voice model confirm the harm has occurred. The AI system's development and use led directly to this harm. Hence, it meets the criteria for an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The AI system (Sky voice) is explicitly mentioned and was used in a way that allegedly infringed on Scarlett Johansson's rights by copying her voice without permission. This constitutes a violation of intellectual property and personal rights, which falls under the category of harm to rights under the framework. The event involves the use of the AI system leading directly to this harm, making it an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information. The apology and suspension are responses to the incident but do not change the classification of the event itself.

The event involves an AI system (ChatGPT with voice interaction), but the issue is about user perception of voice similarity and OpenAI's response to it. There is no harm or violation of rights reported, nor any plausible future harm indicated. The article mainly provides complementary information about OpenAI's product development, voice options, and organizational changes related to AI safety. Therefore, it fits the definition of Complementary Information rather than an AI Incident or AI Hazard.

The article involves an AI system (ChatGPT with voice interaction) and discusses changes to its voice feature due to user perceptions. However, there is no evidence of any direct or indirect harm caused by the AI system, nor any plausible future harm indicated. The concerns are about resemblance to a celebrity voice, which OpenAI denies as intentional imitation. The event is an update on the AI system's development and company actions, fitting the definition of Complementary Information rather than an Incident or Hazard.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice feature) whose development and use led to a dispute over unauthorized use of a voice similar to that of Scarlett Johansson, constituting a violation of rights. The harm is realized as it has caused reputational and legal concerns for Johansson, fitting the definition of an AI Incident under violations of human rights or intellectual property rights. The AI system's role is pivotal as the voice was generated and deployed by OpenAI's AI technology. Hence, this is not merely a complementary information or unrelated news but an AI Incident.

An AI system (ChatGPT GPT-4o with the Sky assistant) is explicitly mentioned as generating audio that resembles Scarlett Johansson's voice. The actress's complaint indicates a possible violation of her rights, specifically related to unauthorized use of her voice, which is a form of intellectual property and personal rights infringement. Since the event describes an actual use of AI-generated voice causing a rights violation, it qualifies as an AI Incident under the category of violations of human rights or intellectual property rights.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice feature) and describes a direct harm to Scarlett Johansson's rights through unauthorized use of her voice likeness, which is a violation of personal and possibly intellectual property rights. This fits the definition of an AI Incident as it involves harm to rights caused by the use of an AI system. The suspension of the voice and legal actions further confirm the harm has materialized and is being addressed.

The article describes a situation where an AI system's voice output is claimed to have been copied from an actress's voice without permission, which implicates potential violation of intellectual property or personality rights. The AI system's use has led to a dispute and the company is suspending the feature pending resolution. Since the AI system's use has directly led to a potential violation of rights, this constitutes an AI Incident under the framework, specifically a violation of intellectual property or related rights.

The event explicitly involves an AI system generating a synthetic voice that closely mimics a real person's voice without permission, leading to a dispute and apology. This constitutes a violation of rights (intellectual property and personal identity), which is a recognized harm under the AI Incident definition. The AI system's use directly caused this harm, and the suspension of the voice indicates acknowledgment of the issue. Hence, the classification as an AI Incident is appropriate.

The article involves an AI system (ChatGPT with voice interaction) and discusses concerns about voice similarity to a celebrity, which raises ethical considerations but does not constitute a direct or indirect harm as defined by the framework. There is no evidence of injury, rights violations, or other harms caused by the AI system. The company's response to public feedback and organizational changes are governance and development updates. Therefore, this event is best classified as Complementary Information, as it provides context and updates related to AI system development and societal responses without describing an AI Incident or AI Hazard.

The article explicitly describes an AI system (ChatGPT's voice synthesis) that generated a voice very similar to Scarlett Johansson's without her permission, which constitutes a violation of rights (personal and possibly intellectual property rights). The harm has already occurred as the voice was used and caused distress to the individual, prompting legal action and the removal of the voice. This fits the definition of an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly led to a breach of rights.

The event involves the use of an AI system (ChatGPT with a new voice feature) and concerns about potential misuse or ethical issues related to voice replication. However, no direct or indirect harm has been reported or occurred. The suspension is a precautionary measure to address user concerns and clarify the voice's origin. Therefore, this is not an AI Incident or AI Hazard but rather an update on the AI system's deployment and response to public concerns, fitting the definition of Complementary Information.

The article describes an AI system (ChatGPT 4.0 with a voice feature) that uses a voice closely resembling Scarlett Johansson's without her permission, which she finds shocking and has led her to engage legal counsel. This constitutes a violation of her personal rights and possibly intellectual property rights, fulfilling the criteria for harm under the AI Incident definition (violation of rights). The AI system's use directly led to this harm, and OpenAI's response acknowledges the issue and ceases use of the voice. Hence, this is an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice avatar) whose development and use allegedly infringed on Scarlett Johansson's rights by replicating her voice without consent. This is a direct violation of intellectual property and personal rights, which falls under harm category (c) in the AI Incident definition. The harm has materialized as the actress has taken legal action and OpenAI has responded by suspending the voice. Therefore, this is an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event describes a situation where an AI system (voice synthesis technology used in ChatGPT) has been used in a way that allegedly violates intellectual property and personal rights by copying a celebrity's voice without permission. This constitutes a violation of intellectual property rights and potentially personal rights, which falls under the category of harm (c) in the AI Incident definition. The harm is realized as the actress has taken legal action and OpenAI has responded by suspending the voice. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to the direct involvement of an AI system in causing a rights violation.

An AI system (ChatGPT with voice interaction) is explicitly involved, as OpenAI developed synthetic voices using AI techniques. The use of a voice closely resembling Scarlett Johansson's without her consent constitutes a violation of rights, specifically related to personal likeness and possibly intellectual property or personality rights. This harm has already occurred, as the actress was shocked and took legal action, and OpenAI acknowledged the issue by suspending the voice. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to violation of rights caused by the AI system's use of synthetic voice technology.

The article involves an AI system (ChatGPT with voice interaction) and discusses concerns about voice similarity and organizational changes in AI safety teams. However, it does not report any realized harm such as injury, rights violations, or disruption caused by the AI system. The focus is on OpenAI's response to public concerns and future plans, which fits the definition of Complementary Information rather than an Incident or Hazard. There is no credible indication of plausible future harm from the voice similarity issue alone, nor any direct or indirect harm reported.

The event involves an AI system (the synthetic voice 'Sky' used in ChatGPT) whose use led to public confusion about its resemblance to a celebrity's voice. However, there is no evidence of direct or indirect harm such as violation of rights, injury, or other significant harms as defined. The company's action to pause the voice and clarify the issue is a response to public concern, not a new harm or a credible future harm. Therefore, this event is best classified as Complementary Information, as it provides context and updates on the AI system's deployment and governance without describing an AI Incident or AI Hazard.

An AI system (OpenAI's ChatGPT with audio capabilities) was used to generate a voice ('Sky') that closely resembled Scarlett Johansson's voice without her permission. This led to a dispute and legal involvement, with OpenAI removing the voice after the complaint. The incident involves a violation of intellectual property and personal rights related to voice likeness, which falls under violations of rights as defined in the framework. Since the AI system's use directly led to this harm and legal conflict, this qualifies as an AI Incident.

An AI system (GPT-4o with voice generation capabilities) is involved, and its use has led to a legal dispute over the unauthorized use of a celebrity's voice, which constitutes a violation of intellectual property and personal rights. This fits the definition of an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly led to a breach of rights and legal action. The disabling of the voice option indicates recognition of the harm caused. Therefore, this event qualifies as an AI Incident.

The article describes how OpenAI's AI system used a voice very similar to Scarlett Johansson's without her permission, which led to her legal action and ethical concerns about voice cloning and identity protection. The AI system's use directly caused harm by infringing on Johansson's personal and intellectual property rights. This is a clear violation of rights under applicable law, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The harm is realized, not just potential, as Johansson has taken legal steps and OpenAI has responded by removing the voice. Hence, the event is classified as an AI Incident.

The article describes an AI system (OpenAI's voice assistant 'Sky') that uses a voice closely resembling Scarlett Johansson's without consent. This constitutes a violation of intellectual property and personal rights, which falls under harm category (c) "Violations of human rights or a breach of obligations under the applicable law intended to protect fundamental, labor, and intellectual property rights." Since the harm (legal violation) has occurred and is the basis of a lawsuit, this qualifies as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The article involves an AI system (voice synthesis AI) whose use has raised concerns about potential violation of rights (celebrity voice likeness) and privacy. However, no actual harm or legal violation has been reported as having occurred; OpenAI is proactively pausing the voice's use to explore these issues. Therefore, this situation represents a plausible risk of harm related to AI use, fitting the definition of an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident. It is not merely complementary information because the main focus is on the potential for harm and the pause in deployment, not just an update or response to a past incident.

The event clearly involves an AI system (voice synthesis in ChatGPT) and concerns the use of a voice tone allegedly imitating a real person's voice without consent. This raises potential violations of intellectual property and personal rights, which are recognized harms under the AI Incident definition. However, the article does not confirm that actual harm or legal violations have occurred; rather, it describes a dispute and precautionary suspension of the voice tone. The harm is plausible and the situation is a warning about potential misuse of AI voice synthesis technology. Thus, it fits best as an AI Hazard, since the harm could plausibly occur but is not confirmed as realized yet.

The event describes the deployment and use of an AI system (chatbot 'Sky') whose voice is strikingly similar to Scarlett Johansson's, despite her refusal to lend her voice. This unauthorized use has caused harm to her personal rights and intellectual property rights, prompting legal action and the removal of the voice. The AI system's use directly led to a violation of rights, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The event involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice mode) and its use of a particular AI-generated voice. The removal decision is based on ethical and possibly legal concerns about similarity to a celebrity's voice, but no direct or indirect harm has been reported or occurred. There is no evidence of injury, rights violation, or other harms caused by the AI voice. The article mainly provides context and updates on OpenAI's response to public and possibly legal concerns. Hence, it fits best as Complementary Information, as it enhances understanding of AI voice use and governance without describing an AI Incident or AI Hazard.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (GPT-4o) using a voice generated or synthesized by AI that closely resembles a real person's voice, leading to a dispute over copyright and personal rights. The use of this AI-generated voice has led to legal pressure and potential violation of intellectual property rights, which fits the definition of an AI Incident under category (c) - violations of intellectual property rights. The harm is realized in the form of legal conflict and potential rights violations, not merely a future risk. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The article describes how OpenAI used a voice very similar to Scarlett Johansson's in ChatGPT's assistant without her permission, despite her refusal to lend her voice. This unauthorized use has caused harm to Johansson's rights and led to legal action. The AI system's use directly led to this harm, fitting the definition of an AI Incident due to violation of rights (intellectual property/personality rights).

An AI system (ChatGPT with a voice feature) is involved, and its use has led to a violation of intellectual property rights or related rights, as Scarlett Johansson claims unauthorized use of a voice similar to hers. This constitutes a breach of obligations under applicable law protecting intellectual property and personal rights. The event describes a realized harm (legal dispute and removal of the voice feature), so it qualifies as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The AI system's use of a voice closely resembling Scarlett Johansson's without permission constitutes a violation of intellectual property and personal rights, which falls under violations of human rights or breach of obligations protecting intellectual property rights. The event describes realized harm through unauthorized use and legal consequences, thus qualifying as an AI Incident.

The event explicitly involves an AI system generating a voice that allegedly infringed on the intellectual property and personal rights of Scarlett Johansson. The AI-generated voice was deployed in a product (ChatGPT), and the harm (violation of rights) has occurred, as evidenced by the actress's legal response and OpenAI's suspension of the voice. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to the realized harm linked to the AI system's use.

The event describes the unauthorized use of an AI-generated voice closely resembling a real person's voice, leading to a violation of her rights over her own image and identity. This constitutes a breach of obligations intended to protect fundamental rights, specifically the right to one's own voice and likeness. The AI system's use directly led to this harm, making it an AI Incident. The subsequent legal actions and OpenAI's cessation of the voice use confirm the harm was realized and addressed.

The article describes a clear case where an AI system (ChatGPT Voice) is alleged to have used a person's voice without consent, which is a violation of intellectual property rights, a form of harm under the AI Incident definition (c). The involvement of the AI system is explicit, and the harm (violation of rights) is realized, not just potential. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice interface) whose voice is alleged to be a deliberate copy of Scarlett Johansson's voice without her consent. This constitutes a violation of intellectual property and personal rights, which falls under harm category (c) in the definitions. The harm is realized as the actress has engaged legal counsel and OpenAI has suspended the voice feature in response. Hence, the AI system's use has directly led to a breach of rights, qualifying this as an AI Incident.

The event centers on the use of AI-generated voice technology that allegedly mimics a celebrity's distinctive voice without permission, which can be considered a violation of rights related to personal identity and possibly intellectual property rights. This constitutes a breach of obligations under applicable law intended to protect fundamental and intellectual property rights, fitting the definition of an AI Incident. The AI system's use directly led to a harm (violation of Johansson's rights), prompting legal action and public controversy. Therefore, this is classified as an AI Incident.

An AI system (ChatGPT-4o) is involved, specifically its voice synthesis feature. The issue arises from the use of a voice that closely resembles a real person's voice without consent, which implicates potential violations of rights (e.g., intellectual property or personality rights). However, the article does not report actual realized harm such as legal rulings or confirmed rights violations, but rather a dispute and a precautionary pause. Therefore, this event is best classified as Complementary Information, as it provides context and updates on a potential rights-related issue involving AI voice synthesis, but does not describe a confirmed AI Incident or a plausible future harm (hazard) at this stage.

The article explicitly describes an AI system (OpenAI's Sky) that uses a voice very similar to Scarlett Johansson's without her consent, which constitutes a violation of her rights and intellectual property. The AI system's use directly led to harm in terms of unauthorized exploitation of her voice, causing reputational and personal rights harm. OpenAI's response to suspend the tool confirms acknowledgment of the issue. This fits the definition of an AI Incident as the AI system's use has directly led to a breach of rights and harm to the individual.

The event involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice assistant) whose use has directly led to a potential violation of Scarlett Johansson's right to publicity, a legal and human rights issue. The AI system's voice closely mimics Johansson's distinctive voice without consent, which legal experts confirm is a recognized harm. The article describes the development and use of the AI system leading to this harm, with OpenAI's CEO publicly acknowledging the similarity, reinforcing the direct link. The harm is not speculative but based on actual use and legal expert opinions, making this an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information. The incident concerns violation of intellectual property and personal rights, fitting the definition of harm category (c).

The article involves an AI system (ChatGPT-4o with voice capabilities) and discusses the use and selection of AI voices. However, no harm or violation has occurred or is reported to have plausibly occurred. The removal of the voice is a response to public perception and ethical considerations, not due to an incident causing harm. This fits the definition of Complementary Information, as it updates on governance and ethical responses related to AI voice use, without describing an AI Incident or AI Hazard.

The event describes the use of an AI-generated voice closely resembling Scarlett Johansson's without her consent, which implicates potential violations of rights (intellectual property and personal identity). However, the article does not describe realized harm such as injury, disruption, or legal rulings confirming violations, but rather the dispute, legal letters, and OpenAI's eventual cessation of use. This fits the definition of Complementary Information as it provides context and updates on AI misuse and rights concerns, rather than reporting a concrete AI Incident or a plausible future hazard.

An AI text‐to‐speech system (ChatGPT’s “Sky” voice) was developed and deployed in a way that directly caused harm—unauthorized use of Scarlett Johansson’s voice likeness—constituting a violation of her individual rights. This is a realized harm from the use of an AI system, so it qualifies as an AI Incident.

The article describes an AI system (ChatGPT with voice interaction) that uses synthetic voices, including one ('Sky') alleged to be a close imitation of Scarlett Johansson's voice without her consent. This involves AI development and use. However, the article does not document a confirmed AI Incident such as a violation of rights legally established or harm realized beyond the claim and legal dispute. It also does not describe a plausible future harm scenario beyond the ongoing controversy. The main focus is on the accusation, OpenAI's response, and the legal and ethical debate, which fits the definition of Complementary Information as it updates on societal and governance responses to AI voice synthesis issues. Hence, the classification is Complimentary Info.

The event clearly involves an AI system (AI-generated synthetic voices used in ChatGPT). The use of Scarlett Johansson's voice likeness without consent constitutes a violation of intellectual property and personal rights, which fits the definition of harm under (c) violations of human rights or breach of obligations protecting intellectual property rights. Since OpenAI has agreed to remove the voice following legal intervention, the harm has materialized and is being addressed. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident. The article also discusses broader governance and safety issues at OpenAI, but the primary focus is the unauthorized use of the voice, which is a realized harm. Hence, the classification is AI Incident.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice interface) whose use has directly caused harm by allegedly copying Scarlett Johansson's voice without permission, leading to legal disputes and suspension of the voice. This constitutes a violation of rights (personal identity and possibly intellectual property), which fits the definition of an AI Incident. The AI system's development and use are central to the harm, and the harm is realized, not just potential. Hence, the classification as AI Incident is appropriate.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice assistant) whose development and use have led to a dispute over unauthorized use of a voice likeness, which constitutes a violation of intellectual property or personality rights. This fits the definition of an AI Incident under violations of human rights or breach of obligations protecting intellectual property rights. The harm is realized in the form of alleged unauthorized use and the resulting controversy. Therefore, the classification is AI Incident.

The unauthorized use of Johansson’s voice likeness in ChatGPT and the theft of photographers’ images to create deepfakes are concrete harms—violations of intellectual property and personal identity rights—directly resulting from AI system outputs. These are not mere warnings or follow-up updates but actual incidents of AI misuse causing infringement and reputational harm.

OpenAI’s deployment of an AI-generated voice resembling Johansson’s after she expressly declined to participate constitutes an unauthorized use of her identity, infringing her publicity and intellectual property rights. The AI system’s outputs directly caused harm (emotional distress, legal costs, reputational risk) and required remediation, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The article describes how OpenAI’s ChatGPT 4.0 voice feature was created using an AI system that produced a voice ‘scarily similar’ to Johansson’s own after she declined to license her voice. This unauthorized cloning of her voice directly infringes her personal and intellectual property rights, meeting the criteria for an AI Incident under violations of human rights or intellectual property.

The article describes how OpenAI’s AI system synthesized a voice nearly identical to Scarlett Johansson’s without her knowledge or permission, leading her to feel harmed, hire legal counsel, and demand its removal. This is a concrete case of an AI system causing violation of an individual’s rights (voice and identity), satisfying the criteria for an AI Incident.

The AI system’s use of a voice generation model directly led to a violation of Johansson’s likeness and intellectual property rights—an actual harm to her personal and commercial interests. This constitutes an AI Incident under the category of rights violations.

The article describes an actual dispute over an AI system’s use of a synthetic voice nearly identical to Johansson’s, which she alleges was done without consent. This constitutes a realized violation of her rights (intellectual property and right of publicity) by an AI system, meeting the definition of an AI Incident.

An AI-powered voice-synthesis system was deployed using a celebrity’s voice or a voice impersonation without consent, infringing her rights and prompting legal action. This is a realized harm stemming from the development and use of an AI system, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

An AI system’s deployment (the Sky voice assistant) directly led to a potential breach of Johansson’s intellectual property and publicity rights. This constitutes an AI Incident under the category of violations of rights and obligations protecting fundamental and intellectual property rights.

The article describes an AI system (OpenAI’s new voice model) being used in a way that directly harms Johansson by appropriating her distinctive vocal likeness without permission. This unauthorized imitation constitutes a breach of her personal and IP rights, fitting the definition of an AI Incident where the use of an AI system leads to a rights violation.

An AI text-to-speech system was used to clone a real person’s voice without permission, violating her personal and possibly intellectual property rights. The misuse occurred, prompted an apology and withdrawal of the voice, and thus constitutes an AI Incident (a breach of legal and human rights caused by an AI system’s outputs).

An AI speech synthesis system (ChatGPT’s voice “Sky”) is alleged to have directly infringed Johansson’s personal and publicity rights by using a voice matching hers without permission, leading to legal dispute. This constitutes a realized harm—violation of individual rights—stemming from the development and deployment of an AI system.

OpenAI released a new AI voice (“Sky”) that Scarlett Johansson claims was created without her consent and sounds almost identical to her own, implying a violation of her publicity and intellectual property rights. The AI system’s deployment of a voice model that allegedly copies her distinctive voice has directly led to legal action and alleged harm to her rights. Therefore, this constitutes an AI incident under the category of rights violations.

The incident involves the deployment of an AI-driven voice-synthesis model that allegedly imitated Scarlett Johansson’s voice without permission. This unauthorized use of an AI system has caused a violation of her personal and intellectual property rights, constituting realized harm under human rights and IP protections. Thus, it qualifies as an AI Incident.

An AI system (ChatGPT’s voice cloning) was used to impersonate Johansson’s voice without authorization, directly causing a violation of her rights and prompting an apology and product withdrawal. This constitutes a realized harm from misuse of an AI system, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The chatbot’s use of a voice “eerie­ly similar” to Johansson’s without her consent constitutes a direct violation of her rights (intellectual property and likeness). This harm has materialized—Johansson has experienced reputational and legal injury and has sent legal notices, prompting OpenAI to remove the voice. Therefore, this is an AI Incident involving a clear rights infringement.

An AI-generated voice model is alleged to infringe Johansson’s voice rights. This is a realized harm (unauthorized use of her likeness), directly linked to the AI system’s development and deployment, and has prompted legal claims. Therefore, it meets the criteria for an AI Incident.

The event describes a deployed AI system producing an unauthorized deepfake of Scarlett Johansson’s voice, infringing her rights and leading to concrete harm—an AI system’s misuse causing a violation of intellectual property and personal identity rights. This is a realized harm event, classifying it as an AI Incident.

The article describes a case where OpenAI’s ChatGPT voice feature (“Sky”) was released despite Johansson’s prior refusal to lend her voice, leading to unauthorized use of her likeness. This constitutes a violation of her individual rights (intellectual property and personality rights) resulting directly from the development and use of an AI system. The harm has occurred and prompted legal demands and withdrawal of the voice, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The event involves an AI system (ChatGPT’s new voice assistant) whose use directly led to a breach of Johansson’s intellectual property and personality rights. This constitutes an AI Incident under the definition of violations of human rights or breaches of applicable law protecting intellectual property.

An AI system (ChatGPT’s “Sky” voice) was used without Scarlett Johansson’s consent, directly infringing her rights of publicity and intellectual property. This is a breach of legal obligations and a realized harm, fitting the definition of an AI incident.

An AI system (OpenAI’s chatbot) has already been deployed using a cloned voice without consent, raising legal and privacy harms. This is a realized case of AI misuse violating Johansson’s personal and intellectual property rights, qualifying it as an AI incident.

The event describes the use of an AI-generated voice assistant that mimicked Scarlett Johansson's voice without her permission, which is a direct violation of her rights. The AI system's use led to harm in terms of unauthorized use of her voice, which is an intellectual property and personal rights violation. The harm is realized, not just potential, as the voice was publicly used and recognized. OpenAI's response confirms the AI system's role in causing this harm. Hence, this is an AI Incident under the framework definitions.

The article describes an AI system (the ChatGPT voice feature 'Sky') that was developed and used in a way that directly led to harm: the unauthorized replication of Scarlett Johansson's voice, which constitutes a violation of her intellectual property and personal rights. The harm is realized, as Johansson expressed shock and took legal action, and OpenAI responded by withdrawing the voice and apologizing. This fits the definition of an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly led to a breach of rights under applicable law protecting intellectual property and personal identity. The event is not merely a potential risk or complementary information but a concrete incident involving harm caused by AI.

The event involves an AI system (ChatGPT with a synthesized voice) whose development and use have led to a potential violation of Johansson's rights, specifically related to unauthorized use of her voice likeness. This constitutes a violation of intellectual property or personal rights, which fits the definition of an AI Incident as the harm (violation of rights) has already occurred or is ongoing due to the AI system's use.

The event clearly involves an AI system (voice synthesis in ChatGPT) whose use has led to a dispute over unauthorized use of a voice likeness, implicating rights violations. The harm is realized as the voice was used without consent, causing legal action and the company to disable the voice. This fits the definition of an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly led to a breach of intellectual property or personality rights and operational changes. It is not merely a potential risk or complementary information, but a concrete incident involving harm and response.

The event involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice synthesis) and concerns a violation of rights (voice likeness without consent), which is a recognized form of harm under intellectual property and personal rights. Since the voice was used and then removed due to the controversy, this constitutes an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly led to a rights-related harm (or at least a breach of personal rights) that was realized and publicly acknowledged. The removal and apology are responses to the incident, but the incident itself is the unauthorized or problematic use of the voice likeness causing harm to Scarlett Johansson's rights.

The article describes an AI voice synthesis system (ChatGPT's 'Sky' voice) that used a voice similar to Scarlett Johansson's without her permission. This constitutes a violation of intellectual property rights and personal rights, which falls under harm category (c) in the AI Incident definition. The harm has already occurred as the voice was released and caused controversy, prompting OpenAI to withdraw it. Therefore, this is an AI Incident due to the realized violation of rights caused by the AI system's use.

The event involves an AI system (OpenAI's chatbot with a generated voice) whose development and use have directly led to a violation of Scarlett Johansson's rights by allegedly replicating her voice without consent. This is a clear case of harm to intellectual property and personal rights caused by the AI system's outputs. The harm is realized, not just potential, as Johansson and others have recognized the voice similarity and publicly accused OpenAI. Hence, it meets the criteria for an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (the ChatGPT voice feature) whose development and use have led to a dispute over unauthorized use of a person's voice likeness, implicating violations of intellectual property and personal rights. The harm is realized in the form of alleged unauthorized use and potential rights violations, with legal actions already initiated. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to the direct involvement of AI in causing harm related to rights violations.

An AI system was used to replicate a person's voice without authorization, which constitutes a violation of intellectual property rights and personal rights. The apology and withdrawal indicate recognition of harm caused by the AI system's use. Therefore, this event qualifies as an AI Incident due to the violation of rights resulting from the AI system's use.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (the chatbot with a synthesized voice) whose use has directly led to a violation of intellectual property rights and personal rights of Scarlett Johansson by using her voice without consent. The harm is realized, as the actress has responded with legal actions and public statements. The AI system's development and use are central to the incident, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The article describes a situation where an AI system's voice assistant uses a voice very similar to Scarlett Johansson's, allegedly without her permission. This raises potential legal and rights issues related to the use of personal voice likeness, which could be a violation of intellectual property or personality rights. However, the article does not report any realized harm such as injury, rights violations, or other direct consequences caused by the AI system's use. The matter is currently under dispute and investigation, with the actress seeking explanations and legal counsel. Therefore, this event does not meet the threshold for an AI Incident (no direct or indirect harm has occurred) nor an AI Hazard (no plausible future harm is clearly stated). It is best classified as Complementary Information, as it provides important context and updates about AI system use and related societal/legal concerns.

The article explicitly involves an AI system (ChatGPT 4.0) that generated synthetic voices, one of which was contested for resembling a celebrity's voice without consent. The resulting legal action and removal of the voice demonstrate direct harm in terms of violation of intellectual property and personality rights. The AI system's use directly led to this harm, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The article also references broader related disputes over AI training data and unauthorized use of celebrity likenesses, reinforcing the classification as an incident rather than a mere hazard or complementary information.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (the chatbot with a synthesized voice) whose use has directly led to a violation of intellectual property rights and personal rights of Scarlett Johansson. The unauthorized cloning of her voice and its deployment in the chatbot without her consent constitutes harm under the AI Incident framework. The involvement of legal actions and public statements confirms that the harm is realized, not just potential. Hence, the classification as an AI Incident is appropriate.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (the OpenAI chatbot Sky) using a voice that closely mimics a real person's voice without consent, leading to legal and personal harm claims. This constitutes a violation of rights under the framework, specifically intellectual property and personality rights. The harm is realized, not just potential, as Johansson has responded with legal action and public statements. The AI system's development and use directly led to this harm, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The article describes how OpenAI used AI technology to create a voice demo ('Sky') that closely mimics Scarlett Johansson's voice without her permission, despite her refusal to license her voice. This unauthorized use constitutes a violation of intellectual property and personal rights, which are protected under applicable law. The involvement of AI in generating the voice and the resulting legal threat from Johansson meet the criteria for an AI Incident, as the AI system's use has directly led to a breach of rights and potential harm to the individual. Therefore, this event qualifies as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (ChatGPT 4.0) using a synthetic voice that closely resembles Scarlett Johansson's voice without her consent, which is a violation of her rights. This unauthorized use of her voice likeness constitutes a breach of intellectual property and personal rights, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident under violations of human rights or intellectual property rights. The harm is realized as the actress has taken legal action and publicly expressed outrage, indicating direct harm caused by the AI system's use. Therefore, this event qualifies as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event involves an AI system (the AI voice generator in ChatGPT) producing a voice nearly identical to Scarlett Johansson’s and releasing it without her consent. This unauthorized use of her likeness constitutes a violation of her rights (intellectual property and personality rights), and OpenAI’s response—apologizing and withdrawing the voice—confirms the incident. Thus, it meets the criteria for an AI Incident involving actual harm (rights infringement) caused by the AI’s use.

An AI system (OpenAI’s voice-cloning tool) was used to create “Sky,” a voice nearly identical to Johansson’s, without her knowledge or permission. This misuse of AI led to a rights violation (intellectual property and personal identity), prompting OpenAI to remove the voice. Since the misuse has already occurred and caused tangible harm, this is classified as an AI Incident.

An AI-driven voice synthesis feature is alleged to have directly infringed Johansson’s rights by cloning her voice without permission, prompting legal action and OpenAI’s decision to suspend the voice. This constitutes an AI Incident under IP/rights violation.

An AI-generated voice system (“Sky”) used in ChatGPT is alleged to have infringed Scarlett Johansson’s voice rights without authorization, constituting an intellectual property violation. This is a realized harm stemming from the development and use of an AI system, fitting the definition of an AI Incident involving a breach of legal rights.

An AI system (OpenAI’s voice synthesis in ChatGPT’s “Sky” assistant) was used without authorization to replicate Johansson’s voice, directly infringing her rights and causing harm. This constitutes an AI Incident under the category of violations of human rights or intellectual property obligations.

An AI system (ChatGPT’s voice-interaction “Sky” feature) was used to generate a voice that closely mimicked Johansson’s without her authorization, constituting a misuse of AI and a violation of her individual rights (intellectual property/publicity). The harm has materialized, prompting legal complaints and OpenAI’s decision to suspend and remove the voice. This fits the definition of an AI Incident: an AI system’s use directly led to harm/rights violations.

An AI system (ChatGPT’s “Sky” voice) directly caused harm by allegedly copying Johansson’s voice without permission, infringing her personal and intellectual property rights. This realized violation prompted legal action and constitutes an AI Incident.

The article describes a synthetic voice created by an AI system being used without consent, leading to a clear infringement of Johansson’s personal and publicity rights. This unauthorized voice replication is an actual harm caused by the AI system’s development and use, qualifying it as an AI Incident under the violation of individual rights category.

OpenAI developed and deployed an AI-generated voice (“Sky”) that closely mimicked Scarlett Johansson’s voice without her consent, leading her to retain legal counsel and compel OpenAI to suspend and agree to remove the voice. This constitutes a direct violation of her intellectual property/publicity rights due to misuse of an AI system’s output, fitting the definition of an AI Incident (violation of rights).

The case centers on an AI-powered text-to-speech system (“Sky Voices” in ChatGPT) directly using a voice matching Johansson’s without consent, constituting an alleged infringement of her rights. This is a realized harm (violation of intellectual property/right of publicity) stemming from the use of an AI system, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The case centers on an AI system (OpenAI’s ChatGPT voice service) allegedly misappropriating Johansson’s voice—an infringement of her personal and intellectual property rights. This is direct harm caused by the development and deployment of an AI feature.

The incident involves the use of an AI system (ChatGPT’s voice model) that directly led to harm—unauthorized imitation of Johansson’s voice, infringing on her personal and possibly intellectual property rights and causing emotional distress. This constitutes a realized harm tied to the AI system’s outputs.

The article describes a real incident in which an AI system’s voice-synthesis function was used in a way that allegedly violated Johansson’s personal and intellectual property rights. This is a direct misuse of AI that caused reputational and legal harm, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The AI text-to-speech system in ChatGPT produced a voice nearly identical to Johansson’s, infringing her personal and intellectual property rights. This constitutes a realized harm (violation of rights) directly caused by the AI system’s outputs, making it an AI Incident.

The article describes a specific event where an AI system’s development and use (the “Sky” voice in ChatGPT) has directly led to an alleged violation of Johansson’s rights through voice cloning without permission. This constitutes an actual harm—unauthorized copying of a performer’s voice—falling under intellectual property and personal rights violations.

The event describes an AI system (the generative voice model “Sky” in ChatGPT) whose development and use involved copying a real individual’s voice likeness without permission. This constitutes a breach of Johansson’s rights (voice/IP rights) and led to tangible harm (legal dispute, reputational risk). Therefore, it qualifies as an AI Incident under human rights/intellectual property violations.

An AI system (ChatGPT’s voice tool) was used without authorization to replicate a real person’s voice, constituting a violation of her individual and intellectual property rights. The harm has materialized (legal complaint, removal of the voice), making this an AI Incident rather than a potential hazard or mere background update.

The event involves an AI system (ChatGPT’s voice assistant) whose deployed voice arguably infringed Scarlett Johansson’s rights by copying her voice without permission. This is a realized violation of intellectual property and personal rights arising from the AI system’s development and use, making it an AI Incident.

The article involves an AI system (ChatGPT with a voice feature) and the use of AI-generated voice resembling a real person. However, the event does not describe any realized harm such as violation of rights, injury, or other damages. It is about a legal and personal objection to the use of AI-generated voice likeness. Therefore, it does not meet the criteria for an AI Incident or AI Hazard. It is best classified as Complementary Information because it provides context on societal and legal responses to AI voice synthesis technology.

The event clearly involves an AI system (ChatGPT with voice synthesis capabilities) and its use led to a public dispute over unauthorized use of a voice resembling Scarlett Johansson's. While this raises important ethical and legal concerns, the article does not report any realized harm such as legal violations, health or safety issues, or other significant harms as defined for an AI Incident. Nor does it describe a plausible future harm scenario without current harm (AI Hazard). Instead, it reports a company response to a controversy, which fits the definition of Complementary Information as it updates on mitigation and company actions following a prior issue. Hence, the classification is Complementary Information.

The event explicitly involves an AI system generating a voice similar to a celebrity's without consent, which raises issues of rights violation. However, the article does not report actual harm occurring yet, only the legal challenge and removal of the voice by OpenAI. The main focus is on the legal and ethical dispute and the company's response, which fits the definition of Complementary Information about governance and societal responses to AI. There is no direct or indirect harm realized or plausible future harm described that would qualify as an AI Incident or AI Hazard.

The event involves an AI system (ChatGPT’s new voice feature) whose deployment led to the unauthorized use of a voice nearly identical to a public figure’s, resulting in claims of violation of Johansson’s personality and IP rights. This is a concrete harm (rights violation) directly caused by the AI system’s use, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

OpenAI’s AI system (ChatGPT with the “Sky” voice) was directly used to create a synthetic voice infringing Johansson’s likeness and rights. This constitutes a realized harm under intellectual property and personality rights (a violation of human rights/obligations), making it an AI Incident.

An AI system (ChatGPT’s new voice capability) was used in a way that allegedly appropriated Johansson’s likeness without consent, raising legal and ethical issues around deepfakes and rights of personal identity. This constitutes a realized harm—violation of human and intellectual property rights—directly linked to the AI’s output, qualifying it as an AI Incident.

An AI system (ChatGPT’s synthetic voice “Sky”) directly caused a harm—misappropriation of Johansson’s voice likeness—constituting a violation of her intellectual property and publicity rights. This is a realized harm from the use of an AI system, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The article describes a real dispute over OpenAI’s use of Scarlett Johansson’s voice in its AI-powered text-to-speech system without her permission. That alleged unauthorized appropriation of her voice constitutes a violation of her rights caused by an AI system’s development/use. Therefore, this is an AI Incident involving intellectual property and personality rights infringement.

OpenAI deployed an AI-powered voice synthesis feature that cloned Johansson’s voice after she explicitly refused permission, leading to a non-consensual deepfake. This misuse of an AI system has directly infringed on her personal and intellectual property rights, qualifying as an AI Incident.

An AI system (ChatGPT’s text-to-speech model) was used to generate a voice that infringed on Johansson’s personal and intellectual property rights without permission. This non-consensual use of her likeness constitutes a realized harm—unauthorized appropriation of an individual’s voice—and thus meets the criteria for an AI Incident under violations of rights.

An AI voice-synthesis system (‘Sky’) was deployed in ChatGPT that allegedly imitated Johansson’s voice without permission, prompting her to hire a lawyer and file legal claims for violation of her likeness and related rights. This constitutes an AI Incident because the AI system’s use directly led to a breach of Johansson’s legal rights.

This event describes an AI system’s unauthorized use of voice cloning technology that directly infringed Johansson’s personal and intellectual property rights and caused reputational and emotional harm. It thus constitutes an AI Incident under the category of rights violations.

The article describes an AI system (ChatGPT) using a voice that closely resembles a celebrity's voice without authorization, which led to the celebrity's outrage and legal response. This is a clear case of violation of intellectual property and personal rights caused by the AI system's use. The harm is realized, not just potential, as the voice was deployed and heard by users, prompting legal action. Therefore, it meets the criteria for an AI Incident involving violation of rights.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (ChatGPT voice assistants) and concerns the alleged unauthorized use of a person's voice, which is a violation of intellectual property and personal rights. This harm has already occurred or is ongoing, as the voice assistant was released and demonstrated publicly. The dispute and the company's response to pause the voice's use indicate direct involvement of AI in causing a rights violation. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to the breach of rights caused by the AI system's use or development.

The event involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice synthesis feature) and concerns about the resemblance of one AI-generated voice to a celebrity's voice. However, the company has not acknowledged any violation or harm, and the voice has been suspended as a precaution. There is no direct or indirect harm reported, nor a plausible future harm explicitly stated beyond the precautionary suspension. Therefore, this event does not qualify as an AI Incident or AI Hazard. It is best classified as Complementary Information because it provides an update on the AI system's use and the company's response to public concerns, enhancing understanding of AI voice synthesis and privacy considerations.

The AI system (voice synthesis) was used to create a voice that sounds 'incredibly similar' to Scarlett Johansson's voice without her consent, which led to her hiring lawyers and demanding removal of the voice. This constitutes a violation of intellectual property or personal rights, fulfilling the criteria for harm under (c) violations of human rights or breach of obligations protecting intellectual property rights. The AI system's use directly led to this harm, making it an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The article describes a situation where an AI system's voice is alleged to closely mimic a celebrity's voice without consent, raising concerns about rights violations and identity protection. Since the AI system is not yet publicly available and no direct harm has been reported, this constitutes a plausible risk of harm rather than a realized incident. Therefore, this event fits the definition of an AI Hazard, as the development and potential use of the AI voice could plausibly lead to violations of rights or other harms once deployed.

The article explicitly involves an AI system (GPT-4o) that used a voice model closely resembling Scarlett Johansson's voice without her permission. This unauthorized use of her voice constitutes a violation of her rights, which falls under harm category (c) - violations of human rights or breach of obligations protecting intellectual property and personality rights. The harm has already occurred as the voice was available and recognized by users, prompting legal action and the removal of the voice from the system. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to realized harm linked directly to the AI system's use.

The article explicitly involves an AI system (OpenAI's ChatGPT with a voice mode) that generated a voice closely mimicking Scarlett Johansson's without her consent. This unauthorized use constitutes a violation of her rights, which is a breach of obligations under applicable law protecting personal and intellectual property rights. The harm is realized, as Johansson and her legal team have taken action, and OpenAI agreed to remove the voice. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to direct harm caused by the AI system's use.

The event involves an AI system (voice synthesis technology) that was used to create a voice very similar to Scarlett Johansson's without her consent, which is a violation of personal and possibly intellectual property rights. This fits the definition of an AI Incident under category (c) violations of human rights or breach of obligations protecting fundamental and intellectual property rights. The AI system's use directly led to this violation, prompting legal intervention and the disabling of the feature. Although OpenAI denies the voice is Johansson's, the resemblance and the legal response indicate harm has occurred. Hence, this is an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The article reports a real misuse of an AI-based voice‐cloning system to replicate Scarlett Johansson’s voice without consent. This unauthorized cloning directly infringes her intellectual property and personality rights, constituting an actual harm. Therefore, it is classified as an AI Incident.

The event describes an AI system (ChatGPT voice synthesis) producing a voice that closely mimicked a real individual’s voice without consent, leading to a claim of violation of personal/voice rights—a breach of intellectual property and personal rights. This constitutes realized harm from an AI system, making it an AI Incident.

An AI system (GPT-4o’s ‘Sky’ voice) was deployed that closely mimicked Johansson’s voice without authorization, directly raising claims of rights violations. This constitutes an AI Incident under violations of human rights/intellectual property categories.

The piece centers on a labor‐union response and legal/governance developments around an ongoing voice-rights dispute, rather than reporting a fresh harm caused by AI or warning of a new hazard. It updates on OpenAI’s replacement of the contested voice and SAG-AFTRA’s support, fitting the definition of Complementary Information.

While an AI voice‐cloning system is at the center of the controversy, the piece focuses on the ongoing debate, union backing, and ethical concerns rather than a specific, realized harm or lawsuit outcome. It primarily reports on industry reactions and governance issues, making it Complementary Information.

No actual harm incident (e.g., physical injury or realized rights violation) is being reported; rather, the piece focuses on the union’s policy and advocacy response to a potential rights issue. This makes it a governance/legal update (Complementary Information) rather than a new AI Incident or Hazard.

This item centers on industry and union responses—legal and policy efforts to secure transparency and protections against AI misuse of actors’ voices. There is no new incident of realized harm or a description of a potential future technical hazard; instead, it reports on advocacy actions and negotiations, fitting the definition of Complementary Information.

The central narrative is the union’s reaction—supporting Johansson and advocating for transparency and protective legislation—and OpenAI’s corrective step of removing the voice. There is no confirmed AI-caused harm or pending risk case presented; instead, this is an update on stakeholders’ responses and regulatory efforts, making it Complementary Information.

The event describes a dispute over the use of an AI-generated voice that sounds similar to a real person's voice without authorization. This implicates potential violations of rights related to voice likeness and consent. However, there is no indication that actual harm has occurred yet, such as unauthorized commercial use or damage to Johansson's reputation. The main focus is on concerns and calls for protections and transparency, indicating a potential risk rather than a realized harm. Therefore, this qualifies as Complementary Information about ongoing governance and rights issues related to AI voice synthesis, rather than an AI Incident or AI Hazard.

The event involves an AI system’s actual use of a synthesized voice that a major actress claims was copied from her performance without permission, raising intellectual property and personality‐rights violations. This is a realized harm from an AI system’s development and use.

An AI system (the Sky voice chatbot) was used without Johansson’s permission to imitate her distinctive voice, directly implicating intellectual property and personal rights and causing harm (violation of rights). This constitutes an AI Incident.

The Sky chatbot’s AI-generated voice directly mimicked Johansson’s unique voice without her permission, infringing her publicity and personality rights. This misuse of AI to create a deepfake voice is an actual event that has caused reputational and legal harm, meeting the criteria for an AI Incident.

An AI system (OpenAI’s chatbot with voice-cloning) was used to replicate Johansson’s voice without permission, directly infringing on her personal and economic rights. This misuse of AI for unauthorized voice duplication has already occurred, meeting the criteria for an AI Incident under violations of fundamental and intellectual property rights.

An AI system (OpenAI’s voice-enabled ChatGPT) has been used (or misused) to generate speech that impersonates a real person’s voice without consent. This constitutes a realized harm (violation of Johansson’s personality and intellectual property rights) directly caused by the AI system’s deployment. Therefore, it is classified as an AI Incident.

The event involves the use of an AI system (ChatGPT with a voice assistant) and a claim of unauthorized use of a person's voice likeness, which relates to a violation of intellectual property or personality rights. However, the article describes an allegation and dispute rather than a confirmed harm or incident. There is no clear indication that harm has already occurred or that the AI system's use has directly led to realized harm. Therefore, this situation represents a potential legal and rights-related issue but does not yet constitute an AI Incident. It is best classified as Complementary Information about a dispute and concerns regarding AI use and rights.

The article explicitly involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice synthesis) that uses a voice model resembling Scarlett Johansson's voice without her consent. This implicates potential violations of personality and intellectual property rights, which fall under harm category (c). However, the article does not report that these harms have already occurred or been legally established; rather, it describes a dispute and potential legal action. Since the harm is plausible but not confirmed or realized, the event fits the definition of an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident. It is not Complementary Information because the main focus is the emerging controversy and potential harm, not a response or update to a past incident. It is not Unrelated because the AI system and potential harm are central to the event.

The AI system (ChatGPT-4.0 voice assistant) was used in a way that directly led to a violation of Scarlett Johansson's rights by mimicking her voice without consent. This constitutes a breach of intellectual property and personal rights protections. The harm is realized as the voice was publicly used and recognized as similar to Johansson's, causing reputational and possibly legal harm. The company's removal of the voice setting is a remedial action but does not negate the fact that the incident occurred. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to violation of rights caused by the AI system's use.

The event clearly involves an AI system (ChatGPT's voice synthesis feature) whose use has directly led to harm in the form of violation of personal rights (voice likeness without consent), causing distress to the individual concerned and legal challenges. The AI system's development and use are central to the incident, and the harm is realized, not just potential. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident under the framework, specifically under violations of human rights or breach of obligations protecting intellectual property and personal rights.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (ChatGPT voice assistant) whose development and use have led to a dispute over unauthorized use of a voice resembling Scarlett Johansson's. This constitutes a violation of rights (intellectual property/personality rights) as Johansson claims her voice likeness was used without permission. The AI system's role is pivotal in this harm, as the voice was generated by the AI system. Although no physical harm occurred, the framework includes violations of rights as a form of harm qualifying as an AI Incident. The ongoing legal and ethical dispute and OpenAI's response confirm the incident status rather than a mere hazard or complementary information.

The event clearly involves an AI system generating a voice for a virtual assistant, which is an AI system by definition. The use of a voice closely resembling a celebrity's without consent constitutes a violation of intellectual property and personal rights, fitting the definition of harm under (c) violations of human rights or breach of obligations under applicable law protecting intellectual property rights. The harm has already occurred as the voice was used in a product and publicly demonstrated, and Johansson has taken legal action. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident.

The article describes an AI system (OpenAI's GPT-4o voice assistant) that uses a voice closely resembling Scarlett Johansson's without her consent, which led to her filing a lawsuit. This unauthorized use of her voice implicates violations of rights protected under applicable law, specifically intellectual property and personality rights. The AI system's use directly led to this harm, qualifying the event as an AI Incident. The event is not merely a potential risk or complementary information but a realized harm due to the unauthorized voice use and ensuing legal action.

The article describes how OpenAI used a synthetic voice in their GPT-4o model that closely resembles Scarlett Johansson's voice without her permission, despite her refusal to collaborate. Johansson has hired lawyers to address this issue, indicating a legal dispute over rights violations. The AI system's development and use directly caused harm to Johansson's rights and identity, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The harm is realized, not just potential, as the voice was used in a demo and publicized, causing distress and legal action.

The article describes an AI system (ChatGPT's voice assistant 'Sky') that uses a voice closely resembling Scarlett Johansson's without her permission, which she claims is unauthorized and harmful. This is a direct violation of her rights, including intellectual property and personality rights. The AI system's use of this voice has caused realized harm, as Johansson has publicly objected and sought legal advice. The company's response to remove or suspend the voice confirms the incident's materialization. Therefore, this is an AI Incident involving violation of rights due to the AI system's use.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (ChatGPT's text-to-speech feature) whose use has directly led to a dispute over unauthorized voice replication, implicating violations of intellectual property and personal rights. The harm is realized as the voice likeness was used without consent, causing reputational and legal harm to Scarlett Johansson. The AI system's development and use are central to the incident, and the company's response confirms the AI's pivotal role. Hence, this is an AI Incident under the framework's criteria for violations of rights caused by AI system use.

The article involves an AI system (the OpenAI chatbot 'Sky') that uses a voice allegedly very similar to Scarlett Johansson's. The issue centers on the unauthorized use or imitation of her voice, which implicates potential violations of personal rights and identity protection. However, the article does not report any realized harm such as legal rulings, damages, or confirmed misuse causing injury or rights violations yet. It mainly reports Johansson's public complaint and concerns about the AI's use of her voice, which suggests a potential for harm but no confirmed incident has occurred. Therefore, this is best classified as Complementary Information, as it provides context and updates on societal and legal concerns related to AI voice cloning, without describing a concrete AI Incident or an imminent AI Hazard.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (ChatGPT's Voice Mode) that generated a voice closely resembling Scarlett Johansson's, which she did not authorize. The use of this AI-generated voice has caused harm by infringing on her personality rights and potentially intellectual property rights. The involvement of legal counsel and the demand for transparency and regulation further indicate that harm has occurred. Therefore, this is an AI Incident due to the violation of rights caused by the AI system's use.

The article discusses the use of an AI-generated voice similar to Scarlett Johansson's without her permission, leading to legal threats and demands for transparency. This involves the use of an AI system (voice synthesis in ChatGPT) and raises concerns about personality rights and consent. However, the article does not report any actual harm such as health injury, operational disruption, or violation of fundamental rights beyond the personality rights dispute. Since the harm is potential and legal/ethical in nature, and no incident of realized harm is described, this event is best classified as Complementary Information, providing context on societal and legal responses to AI voice synthesis issues.

The article describes how OpenAI's AI system generated a voice closely resembling Scarlett Johansson's without licensing or consent, which has led to legal accusations and industry backlash. This constitutes a violation of Johansson's rights, specifically the right of publicity, which is a breach of obligations under applicable law protecting fundamental and intellectual property rights. The AI system's use directly caused this harm, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The event is not merely a potential risk or complementary information but a realized harm involving AI use.

The event involves an AI system (the 'Sky' voice assistant) and a dispute over voice likeness, which relates to potential intellectual property or personality rights issues. However, since no confirmed violation or harm has occurred, and the article focuses on the dispute and clarifications rather than a confirmed incident, this does not qualify as an AI Incident. It also does not present a plausible future harm scenario beyond the existing dispute, so it is not an AI Hazard. The article primarily provides complementary information about the situation and the parties' positions, making it Complementary Information.

The event describes an AI system (ChatGPT) using a voice imitation of Johansson’s real voice without permission, directly infringing her rights and causing reputational and legal harm. OpenAI’s subsequent pledge to stop using that voice does not change the fact that the unauthorized use has already occurred.

This is a direct use of an AI system’s voice generation feature that allegedly infringed Johansson’s voice rights without consent. It constitutes a violation of her intellectual property/right of publicity, fitting the definition of an AI Incident (harms category: breach of intellectual property rights).

The article describes a dispute in which OpenAI’s use of an AI voice model allegedly infringes Johansson’s rights to her voice and likeness. That is a direct harm (violation of her intellectual property and personal rights) resulting from the deployment of an AI system, classifying it as an AI Incident.

The event involves an AI system (the ChatGPT 4.0 voice assistant) whose use directly led to an alleged violation of Johansson’s rights (unauthorized use of her voice likeness). This is a realized harm—an IP/publicity rights breach—caused by the AI system’s output, so it meets the criteria for an AI Incident.

The event involves an AI system (OpenAI’s voice synthesis for ChatGPT) whose use has allegedly violated Johansson’s intellectual property and publicity rights by generating a voice indistinguishable from hers without consent. This constitutes a realized harm — a breach of rights — caused directly by the AI system’s outputs. Hence, it is an AI Incident.

The article describes a dispute over the use of a voice in an AI system that resembles a celebrity's voice without consent. This implicates potential violations of intellectual property or personal rights, which are harms under the AI Incident definition. However, since no actual harm or legal finding has been reported yet, and the company has paused the voice, the event is best classified as an AI Hazard — a plausible risk of harm due to the AI system's use, but no confirmed incident has occurred.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (the chatbot voice) whose development and use are under scrutiny for potentially infringing on the actress's voice rights. The actress's refusal and subsequent claim that the AI voice sounds very similar to hers suggest possible unauthorized use or imitation. This raises plausible future harm related to violation of intellectual property and personal rights. However, the article does not report any actual legal ruling, harm, or confirmed violation having occurred yet, only allegations and ongoing investigation. Thus, it fits the definition of an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident or Complementary Information.

The event involves the use of AI systems to replicate actors' voices and likenesses without authorization, which constitutes a violation of intellectual property rights and personal identity rights. These are harms under the category of violations of human rights and intellectual property rights. Since these harms are occurring (e.g., legal disputes and accusations), this qualifies as an AI Incident. The article focuses on realized harms caused by AI use, not just potential risks or responses, so it is not a hazard or complementary information.

The event describes the use of an AI system's voice feature that closely resembles a celebrity's voice without authorization, which constitutes a violation of intellectual property or personal rights under applicable law. This fits the definition of an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly led to a breach of obligations intended to protect intellectual property and personal rights. Although the company denies intentional imitation and has paused the voice, the unauthorized use and resulting legal concern indicate realized harm. Therefore, this is classified as an AI Incident.

The AI system (ChatGPT's voice assistant) used a voice that closely mimics Scarlett Johansson's voice without her consent, which led to her legal objection and OpenAI stopping the use of that voice. This constitutes a violation of intellectual property or personality rights, a breach of applicable law protecting fundamental rights. The harm is realized as the actress is shocked and has taken legal action, and the company has responded by removing the voice. Hence, the event meets the criteria for an AI Incident involving violation of rights caused by the AI system's use.

The event describes the use of an AI system (ChatGPT's voice feature) that allegedly mimics Scarlett Johansson's voice without consent, which could plausibly lead to a violation of intellectual property or personality rights. There is no indication that harm has already occurred or been legally established, only that the actress is seeking legal advice. The AI system's involvement is clear, and the potential for harm is credible, but the harm is not yet realized. Hence, this fits the definition of an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident or Complementary Information.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (OpenAI's chatbot voice generation) and concerns the use of a voice that closely mimics a real person's voice without permission. This implicates potential violations of intellectual property rights and personal rights, which fall under the category of harm to rights as defined in the framework. Although no direct legal ruling or harm has been confirmed yet, the actress's hiring of legal counsel and the company's removal of the voice indicate a realized or ongoing harm related to rights violations. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to the direct involvement of AI in generating the contested voice and the resulting harm to the individual's rights.

An AI system (OpenAI's chatbot with AI-generated voices) is involved, and the event concerns the unauthorized use of a voice that closely resembles a real person's voice, which implicates rights violations (potentially intellectual property or personality rights). Although no physical harm or injury is reported, the unauthorized use of a person's voice likeness by AI can be considered a violation of rights under applicable law, fitting the definition of an AI Incident. The event describes a realized harm (unauthorized voice likeness use) and the company's response to it, so it is not merely complementary information or a hazard.

The article describes an AI system developed by OpenAI that uses a voice model sounding very similar to Scarlett Johansson's voice without her permission. The actress's reaction indicates harm related to unauthorized use of her voice likeness, which is a violation of intellectual property and personal rights. The AI system's use directly led to this harm, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident under violations of rights. Although OpenAI plans to remove the voice, the harm has already occurred.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (OpenAI's chatbot voice) whose use has led to a violation of intellectual property and personal rights by mimicking Scarlett Johansson's voice without consent. The harm is realized as the actress and her close ones recognize the voice as hers, and she has taken legal steps. The company's removal of the voice and apology are responses but do not negate the occurrence of harm. Hence, this is an AI Incident involving violation of rights caused by the AI system's use.

The event describes the use of an AI-generated voice that closely mimics a real person's voice without consent, raising issues of personal identity rights and legal concerns. The AI system's use directly led to a dispute over rights and the removal of the voice, indicating realized harm in terms of violation of rights and identity protection. This fits the definition of an AI Incident under violations of human rights or breach of obligations intended to protect fundamental rights. The involvement of legal counsel and the company's response further support this classification.

The article explicitly involves an AI system used to generate synthetic voices, one of which closely resembled Scarlett Johansson's voice without her consent. This use of AI has directly led to a legal dispute over rights violations, which qualifies as an AI Incident under the framework's category of violations of human rights or intellectual property rights. The harm is realized, not just potential, as Johansson has taken legal steps to address the issue. Therefore, this event is best classified as an AI Incident.

The article describes a clear case where an AI system (voice assistant) was developed and deployed with a voice that closely mimics Scarlett Johansson's, without her consent. This has led to a violation of her rights over her voice and likeness, which is a recognized harm under the framework. The AI system's use directly caused this harm, and the company has even withdrawn the software following the controversy. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to the realized harm involving intellectual property and personal rights violations caused by the AI system's use.

The creation and deployment of an AI-generated voice that infringes on Johansson’s likeness and voice rights constitutes a direct harm—unauthorized use of her persona—triggering legal action. This is a clear case of an AI system’s use causing a violation of personal and potentially intellectual property rights.

An AI system (OpenAI’s Sky voice) directly caused harm by imitating Johansson’s voice without permission, infringing her personal and intellectual property rights and causing emotional distress. This is a realized violation of fundamental and IP rights (harm category c), so it qualifies as an AI Incident.

This is a direct misuse of an AI system’s voice-synthesis capability resulting in unauthorized imitation of Johansson’s voice, thereby infringing her publicity and intellectual property rights. The harm—violation of her personal and IP rights—has already occurred, meeting the criteria for an AI Incident.

An AI system (ChatGPT with synthetic voice generation) is involved, and its use has directly led to harm in the form of violation of Johansson's rights (intellectual property or personality rights). The unauthorized use of her voice likeness without consent constitutes a breach of rights protected under applicable law. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to the realized harm linked to the AI system's use.

The event clearly involves an AI system (ChatGPT's synthetic voice generation) whose use has directly caused harm by producing a voice that closely mimics Scarlett Johansson's without her permission, leading to legal disputes and emotional distress. This constitutes a violation of rights (intellectual property and personality rights), fitting the definition of an AI Incident. The AI system's development and use are central to the harm, and the harm is realized, not just potential. Therefore, this event is classified as an AI Incident.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (ChatGPT's synthetic voice feature) whose use has directly led to a harm—violation of Scarlett Johansson's rights by using a voice resembling hers without permission. The harm is realized as Johansson has publicly objected and taken legal action, and OpenAI has paused the voice's use in response. This fits the definition of an AI Incident under violations of human rights or intellectual property rights caused by AI system use.

The AI system (ChatGPT's voice synthesis) was used to create a synthetic voice closely resembling Scarlett Johansson's voice without her permission, which led to her expressing shock, anger, and engaging legal counsel. This use of AI directly caused harm related to violation of rights and personal distress. OpenAI's response to pause the voice indicates acknowledgment of the issue. Therefore, this event qualifies as an AI Incident due to the realized harm involving rights violations linked to the AI system's use.

The event involves an AI system (ChatGPT’s voice assistant) whose use has directly led to harm—a violation of Johansson’s voice rights and possible intellectual property infringement. This constitutes a realized harm from AI, fitting the definition of an AI Incident rather than a potential risk or mere commentary.

OpenAI’s AI system directly produced a voice likeness of Johansson without authorization, prompting legal action for infringement of her rights. This is a realized harm (unauthorized use of personal likeness/intellectual property), fitting the definition of an AI Incident under violations of human rights and intellectual property.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (OpenAI's ChatGPT with voice features) and concerns the unauthorized use of a person's voice likeness, which implicates intellectual property and possibly personality rights. This constitutes a violation of rights under applicable law, fitting the definition of an AI Incident. The use of AI to replicate or simulate a voice without consent directly leads to a breach of rights, thus qualifying as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The article primarily focuses on public statements, company responses, and ongoing debates about AI safety and ethics, without describing any realized harm or direct AI-related incident. The mention of the voice cloning issue is about a past event with an apology but does not detail a harm incident or legal violation explicitly. The cybersecurity concerns are general expert opinions without direct linkage to an AI system causing harm. Therefore, this is best classified as Complementary Information, providing context and updates on AI developments and governance rather than reporting a new AI Incident or AI Hazard.

The event involves an AI system (ChatGPT-4) and its use of AI-generated voice technology that closely mimics a real person's voice without permission, which constitutes a violation of intellectual property and personal rights. This fits the definition of an AI Incident due to the breach of rights caused by the AI system's use. Although the article focuses on the company's defense and apology, the underlying issue is a realized harm related to rights violations. Therefore, this is classified as an AI Incident.

An AI system (the ChatGPT voice generator) is being used in a way that allegedly infringes Johansson’s publicity and intellectual property rights. This unauthorized voice cloning has already led to a dispute and potential legal harm, fitting the definition of an AI Incident (violation of rights).

The event clearly involves an AI system (the voice assistant Sky) whose voice is alleged to infringe on Scarlett Johansson's rights by sounding very similar to her voice without consent. This constitutes a violation of intellectual property and publicity rights, which falls under the category of harm (c) in the AI Incident definition. The harm is realized as the voice is already in use and the actress has taken legal steps. The AI system's use directly led to this harm. Although OpenAI has stopped using the voice, the incident has already occurred. Hence, this is an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event centers on the alleged unauthorized use of an AI-generated voice resembling Scarlett Johansson's performance, which implicates intellectual property rights and potential violation of rights. This fits the definition of an AI Incident if the AI system's use has directly or indirectly led to a breach of intellectual property rights. Although the article does not confirm legal outcomes or actual harm, the accusation and industry reaction indicate that harm has occurred or is ongoing in terms of rights violation. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information, as the AI system's use has already led to a dispute over rights infringement.

The article describes a deployed AI system whose voice feature directly infringed Johansson’s rights by mimicking her voice without permission, leading to legal threats and removal of access. This constitutes a breach of intellectual property and personality rights (a violation under category (c)), so it is classified as an AI Incident.

While it cites actual incidents of misuse, the piece’s main narrative is not a single new incident but rather an ecosystem‐level survey of risks, stakeholder concerns and proposed safeguards. It therefore serves primarily as contextual and governance‐oriented information rather than reporting a standalone AI incident or warning of a specific near miss.

The misuse of voice-cloning AI to create malicious deepfake audio clips of celebrities with racist and violent content, identity-theft scams on social platforms, and the Scarlett Johansson case over alleged unauthorized cloning constitute direct harms to individuals and communities. Therefore, the article describes realized AI-driven harms and qualifies as an AI Incident.

No specific case of harm has been documented—rather, it outlines plausible misuses of voice-cloning AI (identity fraud, scams) and reflects a credible risk of future incidents. Therefore, it constitutes an AI Hazard.

The article explicitly describes AI systems used for voice cloning that have directly led to harms such as identity impersonation, unauthorized use of voice likeness, and scams facilitated by AI-generated voices. The case of Scarlett Johansson seeking legal redress for unauthorized voice use demonstrates a violation of rights. Additionally, the use of cloned voices to spread hateful or violent content and scams on social media platforms constitutes harm to communities and individuals. These are direct harms caused by the development and use of AI voice cloning systems, meeting the criteria for an AI Incident.

The article explicitly discusses AI systems used for voice cloning, which have directly led to harms such as identity impersonation, dissemination of hateful and violent content, and potential violations of intellectual property and personal rights. The case of Scarlett Johansson's voice being cloned without authorization and the use of cloned voices of public figures to spread harmful content are concrete examples of AI misuse causing harm. These harms fall under violations of rights and harm to communities, meeting the criteria for an AI Incident. The article also mentions responses and mitigation efforts, but the primary focus is on the harms caused by AI voice cloning technology.

The article explicitly discusses AI systems used for voice cloning and their misuse leading to harms such as impersonation, scams, and unauthorized use of voices, which constitute violations of rights and harm to individuals and communities. The involvement of AI in these harms is direct and material, as the voice cloning AI systems enable these incidents. Hence, this qualifies as an AI Incident under the OECD framework.

The article explicitly discusses AI systems used for voice cloning that have directly led to harms such as identity impersonation, unauthorized use of voice likeness, and malicious dissemination of harmful content. These harms include violations of personal rights and potential fraud or scams, which fall under the definition of AI Incidents. The involvement of AI is clear, as the voice cloning technology relies on machine learning algorithms to generate realistic synthetic voices. The harms described are actual and ongoing, not merely potential risks, thus qualifying the event as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The incident involves misuse of an AI system’s voice-synthesis capabilities to replicate a celebrity’s voice without consent, constituting a violation of Johansson‘s personal and intellectual property rights. The harm (unauthorized use and potential rights infringement) has already materialized and directly stems from the AI system’s deployment. Therefore, this is classified as an AI Incident.