It is reasonably common in the voicing part of the acting industry, when a famous name turns you down, that you instead turn to a voice imitator to give a performance that's reminiscent of a number of factors (kind of sounding like this other person, for example).
This way, legally you're in the clear, because you didn't use the voice of X. Not on any occasion did you use the voice of X. You even paid a voicer to make your recordings, and it's their voice.
Morally, it can be - and probably is - a different matter.
> It is reasonably common in the voicing part of the acting industry, when a famous name turns you down, that you instead turn to a voice imitator
Citation needed.
Even when VAs are recast for reasons beyond control (death, unavailability, aging child voice, health, etc.), they are only similar, not imitations. Happened in a lot of anime.
I think, as with most things, it’s slightly more legally ambiguous if the person you’re copying/whatever is rich enough to have good lawyers and a strong media presence.
You can argue about these morality of that, but I think it’s reasonably true, practically.
Especially given the very clear cut case here of the AI company deliberately cloning the voice of the most recognisable and human-like AI voice from fiction. And also tweeting that they’d done exactly that. And then lying that it was a coincidence. It wouldn’t stand up in court which is why they got rid of it – I’m sure that if Sam Altman and his counsel believed that they could beat ScarJo in court then we’d still be listening to “Sky”.
Why do people think they need an actor? You can recreate a voice from just a few seconds of audio today. Do that and then mix in some fair use modifiers to CYA.
This way, legally you're in the clear, because you didn't use the voice of X. Not on any occasion did you use the voice of X. You even paid a voicer to make your recordings, and it's their voice.
Morally, it can be - and probably is - a different matter.