5 ms·

I believe trademark is the best framework for protection here. A voice is part of a brand. If you imply that your product is from a specific brand then you may

I believe trademark is the best framework for protection here. A voice is part of a brand. If you imply that your product is from a specific brand then you may be in violation of their rights. I cannot add a swoosh to my new shoes if it too closely resembles the Nike brand because it is both false advertising and a trademark violation. No one should be able to use a specific voice without appropriate permission. Unfortunately the ultimate test here is "confusion." Will a reasonable person be confused as to the origin of a product. Satire must be sufficiently obvious to receive protection and branding sufficiently different as to not cause confusion. These tests are well established in the visual realm, they need to be consistently applied to audio as well.

prepend 3y ago
> No one should be able to use a specific voice without appropriate permission. You can’t use their name or endorsement without permission. The challenge is if I do an impression and never say “this is Stephen Fry” then I’m not using their likeness, I’m just emulating. Does Oasis need the Beatles permission for sounding like them? No. But if they performed as the Beatles, then that’s a problem.
sandworm101 3y ago
> No one should be able to use a specific voice What is this thing "specific voice"? Is there a scientific definition, something beyond them just sounding similar to a layperson? There are literally billions of voices on this planet. And a person's voice changes drastically across their lifetime. Any such rules would need exact definitions with enough granularity of data to ensure nobody gains rights over the "specific voice" owned by some other person.
- noobermin 3y ago
  The post you're replying to answered your question. >Unfortunately the ultimate test here is "confusion." Will a reasonable person be confused as to the origin of a product. Satire must be sufficiently obvious to receive protection and branding sufficiently different as to not cause confusion.

prepend 3y ago

> No one should be able to use a specific voice without appropriate permission. You can’t use their name or endorsement without permission. The challenge is if I do an impression and never say “this is Stephen Fry” then I’m not using their likeness, I’m just emulating. Does Oasis need the Beatles permission for sounding like them? No. But if they performed as the Beatles, then that’s a problem.

sandworm101 3y ago

> No one should be able to use a specific voice What is this thing "specific voice"? Is there a scientific definition, something beyond them just sounding similar to a layperson? There are literally billions of voices on this planet. And a person's voice changes drastically across their lifetime. Any such rules would need exact definitions with enough granularity of data to ensure nobody gains rights over the "specific voice" owned by some other person.

noobermin 3y ago
The post you're replying to answered your question. >Unfortunately the ultimate test here is "confusion." Will a reasonable person be confused as to the origin of a product. Satire must be sufficiently obvious to receive protection and branding sufficiently different as to not cause confusion.