zlacker

I honestly don't think Scarlett (the person, not her "her" character) has anything to favor their case, aside from the public's sympathy.

She may have something only if it turns out that the training set for that voice is composed of some recordings of her (the person, not the movie), which I highly doubt and is, unfortunately, extremely hard to prove. Even that wouldn't be much, though, as it could be ruled a derivative work, or something akin to any celebrity impersonator. Those guys can even advertise themselves using the actual name of the celebrities involved and it's allowed.

Me personally, I hope she takes them to court anyway, as it will be an interesting trial to follow.

An interesting facet is, copyright law goes to the substance of the copyrighted work; in this case, because of the peculiarities of her character in "her", she is pretty much only voice, I wonder if that make things look different to the eyes of a judge.

>>morale+(OP)
Likeness rights and copyright are different.

>>pseuda+zh
Fictional characters cannot have personality rights, for obvious reasons.

That falls under copyright, trademarks, ...

>>morale+Bi
Actors who play fictional characters have personality rights.

>>pseuda+Jm
Yes, but not the fictional character. Scarlett Johansson's character in her, credited only as "voice", is a fictional character.

>>morale+an1
No one claimed the fictional character's personality rights were infringed.

People who want to use an actor's likeness can't get around likeness rights by saying they impersonated a specific performance actually.