That’s not the issue and the article clearly states it as well.

The ad has this bit “What’s up guys? It’s Scarlett and I want you to come with me.”

That strongly suggests endorsement. It wouldn’t matter if it was AI or Human, the ad is deceptive and uses someone’s likeness without rights to represent that person.

Whether it is legal for a human depends on what they are doing. On one extreme impersonating as a parody is clearly legal protected speech, while as impersonating to trick people into thinking it is actually her is clearly illegal fraud. Then you have publicity rights that govern the use of ones likeness for commercial purposes, which apply to tools like this, and which have some clear cases and a whole ton of grey area.

Judges generally don't care about internal details of the tech involved, instead focusing on the end result, ruling no different than if a human had done the same thing with different tools. The problems come when lawyers convince the judge into misunderstanding what that end result is using false analogies and incorrect explanation of the tech.

Impersonation can be illegal whether you're man, or man using a machine.

> Why does AI have less rights than humans here?

I'm sure that's not quite what you meant, because that question in itself is ridiculous. Obviously dumb bricks of plastic and silicon don't have rights.

1. "AI" doesn't have rights, let alone human rights.

2. The ad didn't feature images of a person that looked like her, it featured actual images of her that were manipulated to shill the product. This obviously isn't legal. You can't just cut out a picture of Tom Hanks and put him in your ad with a speech bubble saying "buy this product", what was done here is no different from that.

The AI has zero rights. It is not a person, it is not sentient.

Yes, humans can't do this either: https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/when-tom-waits-sued-doritos/

You talk as if an AI was its own lifeform that just happened look like her. (AI rights at this stage, really?) But this is just a company blatantly using her image to promote an app, the AI is irrelevant:

> The ad, reviewed by Variety, begins with an old clip of Johansson behind the scenes of Marvel’s “Black Widow.” Johansson says, “What’s up guys? It’s Scarlett and I want you to come with me…” before a graphic covers her mouth and the screen transitions into AI-generated photos that resemble the actor. A fake voice imitating Johansson then continues speaking, promoting the AI app.

It's complicated. See articles, for example, on the "right of publicity":

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/right-of-publicity/

There's certainly precedent for where using a visual likeness ended up being a copyright violation.

You have to pay [1] the Hebrew University of Jerusalem when you use something that’s only a characterisation of Albert Einstein - I believe it’s considered part of his estate’s intellectual property.

[1] https://einstein.biz/

The difference, at least from my perspective as a viewer, is an advert that used someone impersonating a celebrity would need to be marked as such. If an advertiser used a celebrity impersonator in order to make people think the celebrity endorsed, or was at least willing to be associated with, the brand that would be grounds for the celebrity to sue, and for the advertising regulator to fine the brand.

By recreating a voice in AI the company is effectively doing the same thing - associating that celebrity with their brand without permission. That's reasonable grounds for the celebrity to use the court system to say "That's not me, and I want to be paid for the damage this association may have caused to my status."

Why would a voice synthesizer and ad firm have any rights here? There's no "AI" here in the sense of some sentient being, are you stupid?

Yes it's illegal for a human to impersonate Scarlett Johansson to endorse a product for money. Why would AI have more rights than a human here?

> Why does AI have less rights than humans here?

I'm not sure but this seems like an issue that shouldn't be taken for granted.

> Why does AI have less rights than humans here?

Because "AI" is not people. "AI" is not even conscious.