4 ms·
Ford hired impersonators, she's not an impersonator, that's her real voice. She's allowed to be a voice actor using her real voice. Your can point to the "Her
by theultdev 2y ago
Ford hired impersonators, she's not an impersonator, that's her real voice.
She's allowed to be a voice actor using her real voice.
Your can point to the "Her" tweet, but it's a pretty flimsy argument.
- senorrib 2y agoWhether the actor was an impersonator or not is still up to debate. I can see an argument being made when you consider the entire context.
- theultdev 2y agoI don't see any argument considering the entire context, care to explain?
- Matticus_Rex 2y agoThis is correct, and is very different from both the Midler and Waits cases. The courts are never going to tell a voice actor she can't use her real voice because she sounds too much like a famous person. And besides, it sounds more like Rashida Jones anyway. It's clearly not an impersonation.
- BeefWellington 2y agoThey are unlikely to tell the voice actor anything, since OpenAI is the problematic party here.
- krisoft 2y ago> Your can point to the "Her" tweet, but it's a pretty flimsy argument. I'm not making arguments which are not already explicitly written in my post. My argument is simple: jorvi commented that you can hire "a real-life voice actress" to "try to imitate Scarlett Johansson’s voice as best as she could", and that is not illegal. I said that the legality of that is more complicated. What jorvi describes might or might not be illegal based on various factors. And I pointed them towards the two references to support my argument. I explicitly didn't say in that comment anything about the OpenAI/ScarJo case. You are reacting as if you think that I have some opinion about it. You are wrong, and it would be better if you would not try to guess my state of mind. If I have some opinion about something you will know because I will explicitly state it.