zlacker

They can say they had a certain thing in mind, which was to produce something like ‘Her’, and obviously Scarjo would have sold it home for them if she participated. But in lieu of the fact that she didn’t, they still went out and created what they had in mind, which was something LIKE ‘Her’. That doesn’t sound illegal.

>>apante+(OP)
Not illegal, because this would be a civil case. But they’re on thin ice because there’s a big difference between “creating something like Her” and “creating something like Scarlet Johansson’s performance in Her”.

>>jahews+E5
Creating something like Her is creating something like Scarlet Johansson’s performance of her. The whole point is to hit the same note, which is a voice and an aesthetic and a sensibility. That’s the point! She wasn’t willing to do it. If they hit the same note without training on her voice, then I think that’s fair game.

>>apante+78
Yeah, influential people shouldn't get to functionally own a "likeness." It's not a fingerprint. An actor shouldn't credibly worry about getting work because a rich/famous doppelganger exists (which may threaten clientele).

Explicit brand reference? Bad. Circumstantial insinuation? Let it go.

>>a_wild+Ce
What else does a famous actor have but a likeness? What if their likeness is appropriated to support a cause they disagree with, or a job they declined for moral or ethical reasons? The public will still associate them first and they will bear the consequences.

>>plasti+1b1
A famous actor still has acting, name recognition, and generally mountains of cash. But should not get to call dibs on some vague "likeness" simply because they got hot first. Someone shouldn't damage/lose their livelihood because their famous doppelganger iced them out.