zlacker

>>mjcl+(OP)
Why do I feel like Sam's 'her' tweet pretty much gave Scarlett Johansson's legal counsel all the ammo they needed lol.

>>alsodu+61
It probably made things worse, but the fact that they reached out to her to use her voice and she explicitly refused would be sufficient ammo I feel. (Not a lawyer of course).

Of course, Twitter continues to bring people with big egos to their own downfall.

>>elevat+p5
Not to mention that it matches up pretty much exactly with the Bette Midler and Tom Waits cases, where courts ruled against companies using soundalikes after the person they really wanted turned them down. Doesn't matter if they hired a soundalike actress rather than clone her voice, it still violates her rights.

>>not2b+G7
I am guessing this is only because they first tried to hire the originals before hiring sound-alikes... otherwise, would it mean that if your voice sounds similar to someone else, you can't do voice work?

>>cortes+9d
It's only really about the intent of the voice to sound like the original. Reaching out to the originals first implies intent, so it makes the case easier.

It would be harder to find a case if they simply just hired someone that sounds similar, but if they did that with the intention to sound like the original that's still impersonation, only it's harder to prove.

If they just happened to hire someone that sounded like the original, then that's fair game IMO.

IANAL