But it doesn't sound that much like her, and wasn't positioned publicly in a way that in any way touches on right of publicity considerations. The Midler reasoning also rested on how much of the artist's brand recognition (though that's not the term used) was in the voice. Intentional impression of a singer doing that singer's song is very different than "they hired someone with moderately similar vocal features to ScarJo and Rashida Jones to speak in their own voice."
People mistaking one person's real voice for another person's real voice is basically nothing like what happened in the Midler case.
The Midler case was a vocal impersonation using one of Midler's songs. As discussed in the Midler case, where there's an imitation of the voice, one of the keys is also how much of the likeness/recognition/brand of the person is tied up in their voice, and that's substantially different between a singer's voice on their own song vs. an actress's voice. And given that it's not an impression/impersonation, and literally sounds more like another famous actress than it does ScarJo? This is a great example of facts you'd give to show where the Midler precedent doesn't apply — it's certainly in no way "exactly" like Midler.
