zlacker

And they could have totally get away with it by never mentioning the name of Scarlett. But of course, that is not what they wanted.

Edit: to clarify, since it is not exactly identical voice, or even not that close, they can plausibly deny it, and we never new what their intention was.

But in this case, they have clearly created the voice to represent Scarlett's voice to demonstrate the capabilities of their product in order to get marketing power.

>>nicce+(OP)
> since it is not exactly identical voice, or even not that close, they can plausibly deny it

When studios approach an actress A and she refuses, then another actress B takes the role, is that infringing on A's rights? Or should they just scrap the movie?

Maybe if they replicated a scene from the A's movies or there was striking likeness between the voices... but not generally.

>>visarg+ds
> When studios approach an actress A and she refuses, then another actress B takes the role, is that infringing on A's rights? Or should they just scrap the movie?

The scenario would have been that they approach none.

>>nicce+BK
Your scenario leads to the disenfranchisement of lesser-known voice talent, since they cannot take on work that Top Talent has rejected if they happen to resemble(nobody here has seen their doppelganger before? How unique is a person? 1 in 5 million? Then there are 36 million of that type in just the United States alone). Perhaps it's time to re-evaluate some of the rules in society. It's a healthy thing to do periodically.