[Nadya]

The argument of likeness seems odd to me because there are at least a dozen people who might look almost exactly like you who are alive somewhere in the world.

What if I give explicit permission to use my likeness but my lookalike demands it can't be used? We're both dead. Do my wishes not get respected because someone who looks like they could be my identical twin had other wishes? Whoever's estate has the deeper pockets?

See photography by François Brunelle. The similarities went past appearances too. Many of the stranger dopplegangers had similar hobbies and even similar personalities. So if an AI recreation looks like me, acts like me, and has the same hobbies as me that means nothing unless someone is trying to claim it is me (rather my likeness).

[efitz]

To lawyers, “likeness”is a term of art and means much more than just how you look, including image, name, voice, and other identifiable features. Basically it’s what actors bring to contracts in addition to their labor.

I don’t claim to understand all the intricacies but it is the relevant term of art when discussing this topic from a legal perspective.

[Nadya]

Yes, but none of that is truly unique. The odds of a doppleganger sharing my name are astronomically slim but my looks, voice, interests, personality, etc. are not truly unique to me.

For an example, what of voice impersonators? Sounding like Morgan Freeman is not unique to Morgan Freeman. What if a soundalike legally changes their name to Morgan Freeman? What if a lookalike changes their name?

I'm familiar with the existence of such laws but less so with how they are enforced or how they can even be enforced at all. The laws have never made that much sense to me.

[roywiggins]

The way it mostly works is that if a company hires a Morgan Freeman impersonator to do the voice over for their car commercial, Morgan Freeman can sue them for using his likeness without permission:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/849...

> We need not and do not go so far as to hold that every imitation of a voice to advertise merchandise is actionable. We hold only that when a distinctive voice of a professional singer is widely known and is deliberately imitated in order to sell a product, the sellers have appropriated what is not theirs and have committed a tort in California.

[Nadya]

So essentially only the rich and famous have any meaningful protection under the law. Have to love the legal system sometimes.

Also sucks if you sound like Morgan Freeman. Put out of an entire line of work because someone was famous for sounding like you first.

[Nevermark]

If you not impersonating Morgan Freeman, and there is no history or framing to make that connection, he is unlikely to sue you, or win a lawsuit.

Courts are quite aware that similar things can come from divergent sources.

Even copyright law fails to protect commonality between works that would be illegal if actually copied, but were arrived at legitimately and credibly independently.

Not saying someone shouldn't use common sense to avoid problems. Don't do Morgan Freeman impersonations comedically, then voice overs of movies.

[roywiggins]

The goal I think is to protect people with valuable likenesses being undercut by cheap knockoffs, not to protect everyone's likeness. So it's more like a trademark than anything.