zlacker

> That’s effectively what’s happening here, and it isn’t illegal.

It is more complicated than that. Check out Midler v. Ford Motor Co, or Waits V. Frito Lay.

>>krisof+(OP)
Ford hired impersonators, she's not an impersonator, that's her real voice.

She's allowed to be a voice actor using her real voice.

Your can point to the "Her" tweet, but it's a pretty flimsy argument.

>>theult+BB
Whether the actor was an impersonator or not is still up to debate. I can see an argument being made when you consider the entire context.

>>theult+BB
This is correct, and is very different from both the Midler and Waits cases. The courts are never going to tell a voice actor she can't use her real voice because she sounds too much like a famous person.

And besides, it sounds more like Rashida Jones anyway. It's clearly not an impersonation.

>>senorr+0F
I don't see any argument considering the entire context, care to explain?

>>theult+BB
> Your can point to the "Her" tweet, but it's a pretty flimsy argument.

I'm not making arguments which are not already explicitly written in my post.

My argument is simple: jorvi commented that you can hire "a real-life voice actress" to "try to imitate Scarlett Johansson’s voice as best as she could", and that is not illegal.

I said that the legality of that is more complicated. What jorvi describes might or might not be illegal based on various factors. And I pointed them towards the two references to support my argument.

I explicitly didn't say in that comment anything about the OpenAI/ScarJo case. You are reacting as if you think that I have some opinion about it. You are wrong, and it would be better if you would not try to guess my state of mind. If I have some opinion about something you will know because I will explicitly state it.

>>Mattic+qF
They are unlikely to tell the voice actor anything, since OpenAI is the problematic party here.