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
If the voice actor was cast... why bother reaching out to ScarJo?

Like, do you want to pay her fee, Sam? Because the general idea is to not pay the fee. Which is why you probably cast the voice actor before reaching out to Johansson.

>>lenerd+X3
A potential answer to that is liability protection even when you feel like you are legally in the clear. It is still worth paying a sum to avoid a lawsuit you think you will win.

An example of this is Weird Al pays for the rights to things that are probably ok under fair use parody protection. Paying for the rights removes the possibily of a challenge.

>>Lerc+W6
Does Weird Al pay rights? I know he asks for permission to maintain his relationships with artists and to make sure he gets his share of songwriting credits (and the fees).

But does he pay for rights? I’ve never seen that before and I’d love to read more.

>>hluska+ha
Actually, yes, he does.

https://www.weirdal.com/archives/faq/

>>klyrs+oj
That says he asks for permission. His new song would generate songwriter credits and they’re paid out totally differently from regular royalties. Is that what you mean by him paying for rights?

>>hluska+Vw
Rereading your comment, I see that my answer rather falls short of your question. I don't claim to know anything about Weird Al beyond what he wrote on that page.