zlacker

This is interesting to hear and if she decides to sue there's extremely clear precedent on her side.

The fact that they reached out to her multiple times and insinuated it was supposed to sound like her with Sam's "her" tweet makes a pretty clear connection to her. Without that they'd probably be fine.

Bette Midler sued Ford under very similar circumstances and won.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

>>rockem+(OP)
I wonder if Scarlett Johansson really has a legal copyright since Warner Bros. owns the rights to the movie "Her." It would be like Dan Castellaneta trying to get a copyright for Homer Simpson when the character is owned by Fox.

>>rockem+(OP)
I'm not sure. In the case of *Midler v. Ford Motor Co.*, the advertising agency hired a singer to do an impression of Bette Midler herself, not a character she performs. The singer was instructed to sound as much like Bette Midler as possible while performing her hit song "Do You Want to Dance?" for the Ford commercial. This use of a sound-alike voice led to the lawsuit, as it mimicked Midler's distinctive voice without her permission.

Scarlett Johansson's character in the movie is not Scarlett Johansson although her voice is very similar. I wouldn't say it's identical.

>>thefou+Aa
It's not copyright, you can't copyright a voice, it's down to likeness laws. It seems to me that they clearly invoked her likeness as a celebrity.

It'll be interesting to see what happens if she sues and refuses to settle.

>>thefou+yc
I haven't seen the commercial, but I feel like it's also probably not identical. My read of the case is that the context connecting Midler to the ad without her consent was a key feature, which makes me think Scarlett Johansson would be in a similarly strong position if she brought a case.

But ultimately I'm also not sure. There are some differences that courts could find important. I hope she sues and refuses to settle, so we can find out!