> 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_

> 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.