4 ms·
> However, the company hiring her might not have the right to use her voice with the intent purpose of passing that voice off as that of the other person. Plea
by throwawaymaths 2y ago
> However, the company hiring her might not have the right to use her voice with the intent purpose of passing that voice off as that of the other person.
Please cite statute.
Generally speaking malicious intent only does not an illegal act make. Last I checked a voice is rightly not a trademarkable thing (it's a quality, not a definable entity).
- gizajob 2y agoYeah but it’s not just intent, they released a product after the intent.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rmccue 2y agoCase law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
- throwawaymaths 2y agoThanks. Wow, damn, that's such a crazy ruling. How distinct is distinct enough? How famous is famous enough? I'm surprised Ford's lawyers didn't press the issue further up the courts.
- NamTaf 2y agoNo, it's a pretty straight-forward and understandable ruling. Intent matters, the law is fuzzy.
- throwawaymaths 2y agoNobody said intent doesn't matter.