6 ms·

Bette Midler sued ford back in the day (1988) for hiring an impersonator to sing on an ad and won. (Of course it helped that Ford asked her to sing first) htt

Bette Midler sued ford back in the day (1988) for hiring an impersonator to sing on an ad and won. (Of course it helped that Ford asked her to sing first) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co. "The appellate court ruled that the voice of someone famous as a singer is distinctive to their person and image and therefore, as a part of their identity, it is unlawful to imitate their voice without express consent and approval. The appellate court reversed the district courts decision and ruled in favor of Midler, indicating her voice was protected against unauthorized use.[4][5]" I was actually a little surprised. And this is different, but I think that they're imitating a famous voice (as opposed to my voice...) means they become a target. The fact you can fake anyone saying anything is little amazing. though there are people who can do it quite well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Robert_Thompson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Robert_Thompson Thompson's Arnold Schwarzenegger impression first gained national attention during the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003. Posing as Schwarzenegger, Thompson phoned in to Fox News Channel's morning program, Fox & Friends, fooling the hosts into believing (at least for a short while) that he was, in fact, Schwarzenegger.[4]

css 7y ago
Very important to note that the Midler case has very narrow interpretation. From the Opinion: > We need not and do not go so far as to hold that every imitation of a voice to advertise merchandise is actionable. We hold only that when a distinctive voice of a professional singer is widely known and is deliberately imitated in order to sell a product, the sellers have appropriated what is not theirs and have committed a tort in California.
- AlexanderNull 7y ago
  Videos on YouTube are selling advertisements so wouldn't this apply here?
  - jszymborski 7y ago
    "the sellers have appropriated what is not theirs" IANAL but I think the argument can be made that YT are the sellers here and they are protected by the DMCA
  - zucker42 7y ago
    Some differences that would probably affect things in court: 1. It's parody. Parody has specific statutory protection. 2. It's clearly labelled as speech synthesis. 3. It doesn't stand in for any of the original works. The market for deep fakes is much different than that for songs or presidential speeches.
    - roywiggins 7y ago
      Is it a parody as understood by the law, though? How is it parodying Jay-Z? It's definitely "for fun", but it's not clear that it's making fun of or commenting on Jay-Z. It's really not clear to me. This page cites a case where someone imitated Dr Seuss' literary voice and lost. https://www.cotmanip.com/articles/fair-use-parody https://www.cotmanip.com/articles/fair-use-parody
      - markmark 7y ago
        This is the point I was going to make. For a parody fair-use defence to be valid, you need to be parodying the thing you are infringing on, and as much as people always say "oh this is parody so it's clear fair use" by the accounts I've seen (such as Penny Arcade's Strawberry Shortcake comic) that can be a difficult defence to actually mount.
        roywiggins 7y ago
        The author even says that he didn't pick the texts to comment on the voice in particular, but that doing the same text (the copypasta, the Bible, etc) with each voice was just convenient. It's one thing to impersonate someone to make fun of them, but he's not picking texts for them that way. A Bush impersonator reading the phone book isn't obviously parodying Bush unless he starts throwing in comedy Bushisms or exaggerating the voice for effect. Some Elvis impersonators are parodying Elvis but a lot are just doing a straight recapitulation of his look and voice.
- shawnz 7y ago
  This doesn't seem to narrow the interpretation very much to me besides noting that imitating a random, unrecognizable stranger off the street would be a different situation.
  - Cacti 7y ago
    It very much narrows it to impersonating a well known voice _in order to to sell a product_, therefore the individual is _due proceeds based upon those sales_. Impersonating a well known person for other reasons (parody, political or religious expression, etc.) would not fall under this precedent. ‘In order to sell’ also may not cover all business transactions if they are not the primary purpose, or at least that is what the defense will be partly based on. In other words, just because a video is monetized does not necessarily mean it falls under this ruling.
    - shawnz 7y ago
      > It very much narrows it to impersonating a well known voice _in order to to sell a product_, therefore the individual is _due proceeds based upon those sales_. Impersonating a well known person for other reasons (parody, political or religious expression, etc.) would not fall under this precedent. Isn't that already covered by the fair use doctrine though? It wouldn't be a matter of copyright to begin with in those other cases.
- mc32 7y ago
  During Presidents’ Day car ads are run that contain impersonations of past and present presidents, they are impersonated for commercial advantage, do they get prior permission before running those radio ads?
grecy 7y ago
> The appellate court ruled that the voice of someone famous as a singer is distinctive to their person and image and therefore, as a part of their identity, it is unlawful to imitate their voice without express consent and approval So it's illegal to imitate a famous person, but not a regular Joe? We certainly are all equal, except those who are more equal of course.
- Waterluvian 7y ago
  I would read it as: if you make a living with your unique voice, imitation to make profit is unlawful. The fact that they're famous is really just a tautology. Voices that make money are generally more famous than ones nobody recognizes.
btilly 7y ago
Then how are Elvis impersonators not a copyright violation?
- sbarre 7y ago
  They might be, but they're so small-time that it's not worth pursuing. If an Elvis impersonator started to become famous or successful and popular, you can bet the EP estate would be in touch.
- ashtonkem 7y ago
  Or cover bands, for that matter.
  - paypalcust83 7y ago
    TBH, I saw an AC/DC cover band in a backwater Wichita Falls, Texas bar that was way better than the original. They were far, far nuttier animals and absolutely mad.
    - Smoosh 7y ago
      Hey, AC/DC were young once. Their lead singer died from partying too hard ffs.
      - paypalcust83 7y ago
        I saw AC/DC in concert too. These guys were naked, doing backflips, bouncing off the walls, and breaking shit. Unless you're a sick puppy, hard living doesn't translate to entertainment value. I don't condone or value anyone's recreational extremophilia and I think your one-sided white-knighting is off-base.
        jerrysievert 7y ago
        that sounds an awful lot like The Impotent Sea Snakes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impotent_Sea_Snakes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impotent_Sea_Snakes
throwaway_USD 7y ago
In 2015 I had an unusual solicitation from a recruiter on LinkedIn - as a lawyer this in my experience is a rarity unlike tech where I understand it to be common place - with interest in offering me a General Counsel position with Romero Britto's Company. Turns out Apple engaged in discussions to license (or maybe commissioning) Britto's Art, but then Apple turned around and essentially just "knocked off" of Britto's style. They were looking to bring me in to file and handle lawsuit for copyright infringement...I declined the offer and they filed suit (I believe it ended up with a settlement). It is easy to have strong opinions one way or another about copyright laws, but feelings of law aside, my opinion was that it was in very poor taste for a company like Apple to court an Artist like Britto and then big time him the way they did...sure art and artistic styles are a dime a dozen, but they could have used any art for their campaign, they didn't have to mimic/copy his style (I can't fathom what would even make them do that...ego I suppose). For those who are curious here is a link to an article that shows Apple's alleged infringing art: https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/visual-arts/article18459359.html https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/visual-arts/articl...
- anitil 7y ago
  Out of interest, if someone contacts you in this manner, do you/they have an implicit attorney/client privilege? Or is it only after you come to an agreement to represent them? Or is it more of a rule of thumb?
  - xigency 7y ago
    Pop culture says that happens when the first dollar is handed over.
  - rootusrootus 7y ago
    Privilege begins once the client and the attorney have agreed on representation.
  - henryfjordan 7y ago
    There's attorney client privilege the whole time. It does not require money to change hands or an explicit agreement of representation before kicking in (as some others have said). https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/does-the-attorney-client-privilege-apply-havent-hired-the-lawyer-yet.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/does-the-attorney-cl...
mr_toad 7y ago
“ Midler was not seeking damages for copyright infringement of the song itself, but rather for the use of her voice which she claimed was distinctive of her person as a singer.” Whereas Roc Nation is making a claim that the videos infringe on Jay Z’s copyrights, as well as another claim that they impersonate him without permission. In the Midler vs Ford case, Ford had already secured permission from the copyright holder for the performance. It’s quite a different case.
bawolff 7y ago
Those two cases sound rather different based on the intent. The ford case seemed to be ford trying to get around Midler saying no. Its clear they wanted to imitate her for the purpose of selling their cars. The current case is a mix of satire and people playing around with new technologies (with youtube advertising money being incidental). If anything seems more like a personality rights issue than a copyright issue. IANAL.
HumblyTossed 7y ago
I wonder if Rich Little had to get everyone's permission.
mikekchar 7y ago
Just want to point out (because a lot of people seem confused) that laws requiring permission to use your likeness are not copyright. I believe they fall under the category of moral rights. Moral rights vary dramatically from country to country so it's always tricky to figure out what you are or are not allowed to do if you work internationally.

css 7y ago

Very important to note that the Midler case has very narrow interpretation. From the Opinion: > We need not and do not go so far as to hold that every imitation of a voice to advertise merchandise is actionable. We hold only that when a distinctive voice of a professional singer is widely known and is deliberately imitated in order to sell a product, the sellers have appropriated what is not theirs and have committed a tort in California.

AlexanderNull 7y ago
Videos on YouTube are selling advertisements so wouldn't this apply here?
- jszymborski 7y ago
  "the sellers have appropriated what is not theirs" IANAL but I think the argument can be made that YT are the sellers here and they are protected by the DMCA
- zucker42 7y ago
  Some differences that would probably affect things in court: 1. It's parody. Parody has specific statutory protection. 2. It's clearly labelled as speech synthesis. 3. It doesn't stand in for any of the original works. The market for deep fakes is much different than that for songs or presidential speeches.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    Is it a parody as understood by the law, though? How is it parodying Jay-Z? It's definitely "for fun", but it's not clear that it's making fun of or commenting on Jay-Z. It's really not clear to me. This page cites a case where someone imitated Dr Seuss' literary voice and lost. https://www.cotmanip.com/articles/fair-use-parody https://www.cotmanip.com/articles/fair-use-parody
    - markmark 7y ago
      This is the point I was going to make. For a parody fair-use defence to be valid, you need to be parodying the thing you are infringing on, and as much as people always say "oh this is parody so it's clear fair use" by the accounts I've seen (such as Penny Arcade's Strawberry Shortcake comic) that can be a difficult defence to actually mount.
      - roywiggins 7y ago
        The author even says that he didn't pick the texts to comment on the voice in particular, but that doing the same text (the copypasta, the Bible, etc) with each voice was just convenient. It's one thing to impersonate someone to make fun of them, but he's not picking texts for them that way. A Bush impersonator reading the phone book isn't obviously parodying Bush unless he starts throwing in comedy Bushisms or exaggerating the voice for effect. Some Elvis impersonators are parodying Elvis but a lot are just doing a straight recapitulation of his look and voice.
shawnz 7y ago
This doesn't seem to narrow the interpretation very much to me besides noting that imitating a random, unrecognizable stranger off the street would be a different situation.
- Cacti 7y ago
  It very much narrows it to impersonating a well known voice _in order to to sell a product_, therefore the individual is _due proceeds based upon those sales_. Impersonating a well known person for other reasons (parody, political or religious expression, etc.) would not fall under this precedent. ‘In order to sell’ also may not cover all business transactions if they are not the primary purpose, or at least that is what the defense will be partly based on. In other words, just because a video is monetized does not necessarily mean it falls under this ruling.
  - shawnz 7y ago
    > It very much narrows it to impersonating a well known voice _in order to to sell a product_, therefore the individual is _due proceeds based upon those sales_. Impersonating a well known person for other reasons (parody, political or religious expression, etc.) would not fall under this precedent. Isn't that already covered by the fair use doctrine though? It wouldn't be a matter of copyright to begin with in those other cases.
mc32 7y ago
During Presidents’ Day car ads are run that contain impersonations of past and present presidents, they are impersonated for commercial advantage, do they get prior permission before running those radio ads?

grecy 7y ago

> The appellate court ruled that the voice of someone famous as a singer is distinctive to their person and image and therefore, as a part of their identity, it is unlawful to imitate their voice without express consent and approval So it's illegal to imitate a famous person, but not a regular Joe? We certainly are all equal, except those who are more equal of course.

Waterluvian 7y ago
I would read it as: if you make a living with your unique voice, imitation to make profit is unlawful. The fact that they're famous is really just a tautology. Voices that make money are generally more famous than ones nobody recognizes.

btilly 7y ago

Then how are Elvis impersonators not a copyright violation?

sbarre 7y ago
They might be, but they're so small-time that it's not worth pursuing. If an Elvis impersonator started to become famous or successful and popular, you can bet the EP estate would be in touch.
ashtonkem 7y ago
Or cover bands, for that matter.
- paypalcust83 7y ago
  TBH, I saw an AC/DC cover band in a backwater Wichita Falls, Texas bar that was way better than the original. They were far, far nuttier animals and absolutely mad.
  - Smoosh 7y ago
    Hey, AC/DC were young once. Their lead singer died from partying too hard ffs.
    - paypalcust83 7y ago
      I saw AC/DC in concert too. These guys were naked, doing backflips, bouncing off the walls, and breaking shit. Unless you're a sick puppy, hard living doesn't translate to entertainment value. I don't condone or value anyone's recreational extremophilia and I think your one-sided white-knighting is off-base.
      - jerrysievert 7y ago
        that sounds an awful lot like The Impotent Sea Snakes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impotent_Sea_Snakes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impotent_Sea_Snakes

throwaway_USD 7y ago

In 2015 I had an unusual solicitation from a recruiter on LinkedIn - as a lawyer this in my experience is a rarity unlike tech where I understand it to be common place - with interest in offering me a General Counsel position with Romero Britto's Company. Turns out Apple engaged in discussions to license (or maybe commissioning) Britto's Art, but then Apple turned around and essentially just "knocked off" of Britto's style. They were looking to bring me in to file and handle lawsuit for copyright infringement...I declined the offer and they filed suit (I believe it ended up with a settlement). It is easy to have strong opinions one way or another about copyright laws, but feelings of law aside, my opinion was that it was in very poor taste for a company like Apple to court an Artist like Britto and then big time him the way they did...sure art and artistic styles are a dime a dozen, but they could have used any art for their campaign, they didn't have to mimic/copy his style (I can't fathom what would even make them do that...ego I suppose). For those who are curious here is a link to an article that shows Apple's alleged infringing art: https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/visual-arts/article18459359.html https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/visual-arts/articl...

anitil 7y ago
Out of interest, if someone contacts you in this manner, do you/they have an implicit attorney/client privilege? Or is it only after you come to an agreement to represent them? Or is it more of a rule of thumb?
- xigency 7y ago
  Pop culture says that happens when the first dollar is handed over.
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  Privilege begins once the client and the attorney have agreed on representation.
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  There's attorney client privilege the whole time. It does not require money to change hands or an explicit agreement of representation before kicking in (as some others have said). https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/does-the-attorney-client-privilege-apply-havent-hired-the-lawyer-yet.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/does-the-attorney-cl...

mr_toad 7y ago

“ Midler was not seeking damages for copyright infringement of the song itself, but rather for the use of her voice which she claimed was distinctive of her person as a singer.” Whereas Roc Nation is making a claim that the videos infringe on Jay Z’s copyrights, as well as another claim that they impersonate him without permission. In the Midler vs Ford case, Ford had already secured permission from the copyright holder for the performance. It’s quite a different case.

bawolff 7y ago

Those two cases sound rather different based on the intent. The ford case seemed to be ford trying to get around Midler saying no. Its clear they wanted to imitate her for the purpose of selling their cars. The current case is a mix of satire and people playing around with new technologies (with youtube advertising money being incidental). If anything seems more like a personality rights issue than a copyright issue. IANAL.

HumblyTossed 7y ago

I wonder if Rich Little had to get everyone's permission.

mikekchar 7y ago

Just want to point out (because a lot of people seem confused) that laws requiring permission to use your likeness are not copyright. I believe they fall under the category of moral rights. Moral rights vary dramatically from country to country so it's always tricky to figure out what you are or are not allowed to do if you work internationally.