4 ms·

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 differe

• 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.