[nicce]

> Okay so we can't use voices that are similar to actress voices, and we can't use names that starts with the same "rare consonant cluster" as actress names.

No, we just can't advertise or get other clear benefits based on the fame of something well-known without considering these entities.

It is about the overall picture, and in this case there is very high relation to the movie and Scarlett.

[pseudosavant]

Tweeting a single word, a pronoun no less, is a "very high relation". And that is a legal bar?

Most people have never heard of Her. It wasn't a very big movie, especially outside tech circles. Most of my friends who aren't in tech would have no clue that Altman was referring to an AI in a movie.

[lolinder]

Agreed, if you take each piece of the puzzle in isolation it sounds silly and totally not worth Johansson's time. But that's how most legal cases are: there's no one single piece of evidence that is conclusive proof in and of itself, there is a collection of facts that together form a reasonable basis for concluding a level of intent that meets the burden of proof.

I'm not convinced that the pieces all add up to a slam dunk, but you can't dismiss them one by one, you have to look at the whole.