zlacker

>>panark+(OP)
Altman would have us believe it's all just an innocent misunderstanding but without actually saying so:

"We cast the voice actor behind Sky’s voice before any outreach to Ms. Johansson."

Is he trying to suggest the company did not try to make the voice sound like her without her permission?

The statement sounds like it's written by a lawyer to be technically true while implying something that is actually false.

These are weasel words.

He sounds sneaky, evasive and intentionally deceptive.

We should not give a sneaky, deceptive and manipulative person this much power over our future.

>>panark+m1
There are hundreds of people with similar voices. If any voice actor can pull the same accent than Ms. Johansson, it should be fair game, as long it was the original training material? Voices cannot be copyrighted or be exclusive, although I am sure Hollywood will try to copyright them in some point.

>>miohta+Y1
> There are hundreds of people with similar voices.

Voice *actors* act. It is in the name. The voice they perform in is not their usual voice. A good voice actor can do dozens of different characters. If you hire a voice actor to impersonate someone else's voice, that is infringement. Bette Midler vs Ford, Tom Waits vs Frito Lay are the two big examples of court cases where a company hired voice actors to impersonate a celebrity for an ad, and lost big in court.

>>Cheer2+e8
So when a cartoon show hires a sound alike replacement voice actor so that the switch is hard to tell the former actor has a case against the show? Perhaps instead the show has a case against the former voice actor using that same character voice elsewhere such as in radio advertising to impersonate cartoon characters that are not licenced?

>>czl+Ng
Theoretically yes. Which is why they disclaim that right in their work contract for a voice acting gig.

Believe it or not, these issues have been around for decades, and have been well settled for nearly as long.

>>gamblo+Ul
So the voice of the AI in the film "Her" who do you think has more rights to it being reused elsewhere in association with AI? The voice actor? The film owners? Why then the current news?