Comment by paulddraper
2 years ago
I don't understand.
If you literally use SJ's image or voice, then you're in trouble.
If it's an SJ lookalike or soundalike (and you don't claim otherwise), there's no problem.
Right? What's the "shenanigans?"
2 years ago
I don't understand.
If you literally use SJ's image or voice, then you're in trouble.
If it's an SJ lookalike or soundalike (and you don't claim otherwise), there's no problem.
Right? What's the "shenanigans?"
> If it's an SJ lookalike or soundalike (and you don't claim otherwise), there's no problem.
This isn't true. At least with respect to "soundalike" see, e.g., Waits v. Frito-Lay 978 F.2d 1093 and Midler v. Ford Motor Co. 849 F.2d 460.
Lol what a joke.
The famous person "owns" the sound of their voice, and the non-famous person does not.
Get wrecked peasants.
Notice it's not "Famous person vs Non famous person". It's "Famous person vs Corporation". And in those cases it was not about the voice alone, but the use of it (which was found to be intentionally soundalike and misleading).
1 reply →
Imagine being sued by a celebrity for looking or sounding like them. Should've not chosen to born with a similar voice.
2 replies →
Your second statement may not be true, legally, and at the very least many (including the actress in question) believe it is not true, ethically.