If it is sued out of existence, where do you draw the line? Parody of celebrities have been done for a very long time, it just haven't been this realistic. But as long as you make it clear it's fake (like putting disclaimers before/after/during the show), shouldn't they be in the clear?
South Park have been doing celebrity parodies since episode 0 (The Spirit of Christmas), but it is very clear it's parody, so they are safe. But too realistic depictions might not be safe. Where does the line go in that case?
First thought is that the intent should be taken into consideration. Are you doing it in order to do something that is generally illegal, (like defamation of someones character, staging a coup and so on) or just for the sake of comedy/parody?
The problem is the realism aspect. Look at how often comedic intent is misinterpreted both on the internet and real life. You could end up causing real damage to a person's reputation through this, especially if the video clips are taken out of context which is something that frequently happens already.
Direct observation is the best tool we've got as humans for determining the truth. We augment with tools, but even reading the output of those tools is done with our eyes. We need to be able to trust what we're seeing.
South Park have been doing celebrity parodies since episode 0 (The Spirit of Christmas), but it is very clear it's parody, so they are safe. But too realistic depictions might not be safe. Where does the line go in that case?
First thought is that the intent should be taken into consideration. Are you doing it in order to do something that is generally illegal, (like defamation of someones character, staging a coup and so on) or just for the sake of comedy/parody?