[philwelch]

I’ve never seen that standard applied to acting. Particularly voice acting. Midler v. Ford was a dispute between a singer and a company that used a sound-alike singer, singing a cover of a Bette Midler song in a commercial, to falsely imply a sponsorship that didn’t exist. Totally different case.

[qarl]

You've never seen it, huh? Google is super easy to use.

Here, have a look:

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

https://higgslaw.com/celebrities-sue-over-unauthorized-use-o...

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-right-publicity....

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law...

[philwelch]

There’s a difference between impersonating someone with the explicit intention of falsely giving the impression they are involved in a project which they are not, and simply hiring an actor (or a voice actor) who can give a performance that’s similar or reminiscent of another.

> You've never seen it, huh? Google is super easy to use.

Please stop acting like an asshole.

[qarl]

I'm sorry, friend, from my perspective it seems quite obvious you're not arguing in good faith, and I have no interest in chasing your goalposts.

You take care now.

[philwelch]

> from my perspective it seems quite obvious you're not arguing in good faith

I’m arguing in good faith, in the sense that I’m expressing my own genuine rationale for my own opinions. Your inability to cope with that and remain civil is the only show of bad faith in this entire discussion.

[qarl]

You started this conversation calling my position a "pretty fake controversy".

You take care now. I will not be responding to you further.

[philwelch]

You really struggle with the fact that other people disagree with you, don't you?