zlacker

> There are hundreds of people with similar voices.

Voice *actors* act. It is in the name. The voice they perform in is not their usual voice. A good voice actor can do dozens of different characters. If you hire a voice actor to impersonate someone else's voice, that is infringement. Bette Midler vs Ford, Tom Waits vs Frito Lay are the two big examples of court cases where a company hired voice actors to impersonate a celebrity for an ad, and lost big in court.

>>Cheer2+(OP)
So when a cartoon show hires a sound alike replacement voice actor so that the switch is hard to tell the former actor has a case against the show? Perhaps instead the show has a case against the former voice actor using that same character voice elsewhere such as in radio advertising to impersonate cartoon characters that are not licenced?

>>czl+z8
Theoretically yes. Which is why they disclaim that right in their work contract for a voice acting gig.

Believe it or not, these issues have been around for decades, and have been well settled for nearly as long.

>>gamblo+Gd
So the voice of the AI in the film "Her" who do you think has more rights to it being reused elsewhere in association with AI? The voice actor? The film owners? Why then the current news?

>>czl+8e
Depends on the specifics of the contracts which are almost all unique except for some union and management agreed baselines.