Sure, but you can use someone’s likeness to fraudulently tie them to some product you’re pushing. The burden here is if the average person familiar with the voice would mistake it for support, and if the creator likely intended for that to happen, and I think that standard has been met here given the response by the CEO and the allegations by Jeff Geerling’s audience.
If you just happen to look or sound like a celebrity/politician, that’s a different story because fraud requires intent. Now, if you used your likeness to imply support by that celebrity/politician for some cause or product, and you don’t disclose that you’re not them, then we’re back in fraud territory.
In this case, there seems to be clear evidence that there was intent to mislead viewers to improve views. That’s fraud.
Yes, that was the distinction I was trying to make. These cases are fact dependent. I’m willing to admit that in this specific case there might have been both the intent to imply endorsement by a specific person and that practical result.
But as you can see in the other comments where I’m getting reamed, owning a voice outright is a pretty popular (if currently legally dubious/impossible) concept.
Sure, but you can use someone’s likeness to fraudulently tie them to some product you’re pushing. The burden here is if the average person familiar with the voice would mistake it for support, and if the creator likely intended for that to happen, and I think that standard has been met here given the response by the CEO and the allegations by Jeff Geerling’s audience.
If you just happen to look or sound like a celebrity/politician, that’s a different story because fraud requires intent. Now, if you used your likeness to imply support by that celebrity/politician for some cause or product, and you don’t disclose that you’re not them, then we’re back in fraud territory.
In this case, there seems to be clear evidence that there was intent to mislead viewers to improve views. That’s fraud.
Yes, that was the distinction I was trying to make. These cases are fact dependent. I’m willing to admit that in this specific case there might have been both the intent to imply endorsement by a specific person and that practical result.
But as you can see in the other comments where I’m getting reamed, owning a voice outright is a pretty popular (if currently legally dubious/impossible) concept.