4 ms·

A voice seems to be covered by trademark as opposed to copyright. Two people can naturally have a very similar voice and it would be pretty absurd to have some

A voice seems to be covered by trademark as opposed to copyright. Two people can naturally have a very similar voice and it would be pretty absurd to have someone not allowed to use their own voice. It isn’t absurd for someone in a specific industry to have their voice protected within that trade.

bobthepanda 2y ago
Publicity rights are distinct from both copyright and trademark. In California, they basically have the same protections, lifetime + 70 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Celebrities_Rights_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Celebrities_Rights_... In 1988, Midler v. Ford Motor Co was decided in favor of Bette Midler after Ford hired an impersonator for their commercials. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co. Tom Waits won a lawsuit against Frito Lay for a radio commercial where they hired a impersonator. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-09-me-238-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-09-me-238-st...
- vessenes 2y ago
  I'm aware of both of those -- this voice actor is not a "Johannsen sound-alike" actor. And she is not reciting lines from "Her". It's a significant difference, and there are real harms to any actor not already 'famous' implied by the sort of ruling people here think is obvious -- it's a big leap to say "The Federal Government will not allow you to work because you sound too much like X and so other person, signed, Judge Alsop."
vessenes 2y ago
I agree; one's voice should be protected, generally. However, I do not agree that one should be able to stamp out use of any voice one person deems 'too similar' from plying that trade. This would be pretty surprising; it raises numerous questions of fair play, who decides, whether the courts wish to be in the position of making these determinations, and ultimately, I think the balance of equity is against making a broad decision like this, full stop. People have the right to work, and especially have the right to work in a fair environment where they are not unduly taking advantage of other's rights and trademarks. Marilyn Monroe did not have rights to ban women from blonde curls, or beauty marks, Bettie Page did not have the ability to stop numerous lookalikes from selling pinup photos; this is the same situation.

bobthepanda 2y ago

Publicity rights are distinct from both copyright and trademark. In California, they basically have the same protections, lifetime + 70 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Celebrities_Rights_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Celebrities_Rights_... In 1988, Midler v. Ford Motor Co was decided in favor of Bette Midler after Ford hired an impersonator for their commercials. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co. Tom Waits won a lawsuit against Frito Lay for a radio commercial where they hired a impersonator. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-09-me-238-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-09-me-238-st...

vessenes 2y ago
I'm aware of both of those -- this voice actor is not a "Johannsen sound-alike" actor. And she is not reciting lines from "Her". It's a significant difference, and there are real harms to any actor not already 'famous' implied by the sort of ruling people here think is obvious -- it's a big leap to say "The Federal Government will not allow you to work because you sound too much like X and so other person, signed, Judge Alsop."

vessenes 2y ago

I agree; one's voice should be protected, generally. However, I do not agree that one should be able to stamp out use of any voice one person deems 'too similar' from plying that trade. This would be pretty surprising; it raises numerous questions of fair play, who decides, whether the courts wish to be in the position of making these determinations, and ultimately, I think the balance of equity is against making a broad decision like this, full stop. People have the right to work, and especially have the right to work in a fair environment where they are not unduly taking advantage of other's rights and trademarks. Marilyn Monroe did not have rights to ban women from blonde curls, or beauty marks, Bettie Page did not have the ability to stop numerous lookalikes from selling pinup photos; this is the same situation.