Voices are uncopyrightable, but impersonation isn't legal (see Midler v. Ford, for a notable case), so I don't think the situation is totally clear.
I'm not sure how to feel about that. I'm against the idea that some people "deserve" being paid for being lucky born with an interesting voice.
On the other hand, the world always worked like that. And, say, hard-working farmer or doctor were also lucky being born with necessary traits to make for their living, while others weren't.
I would vote for it only if it somehow encouraged voice actors to experiment and create new interesting styles. Kinda like patents were designed to do -- encourage inventors (although recently it became controversial in IT world).
Of course it's not totally devoid of skill, you need to be able to emote, inflect, and convey emotion, but the bar is far far lower.
Majority of success is attained like this though. Athletes paid for being born strong tall and fast, models paid for being pretty, rich families being paid for being born rich, smart people being paid for being born smart, or hardworking, etc. It's the most dominant factor everywhere.
That it often results in them getting an equivalent mindshare (or more) of the Representatives views is also not surprising, and only natural.
It doesn't inspire warm fuzzies in those too busy working to survive though.
My law classes did cover common law, yes, but not favourably(can you guess I come from a civil law country?). Sounds like a system that made sense in 15th century Britain, but is quite the complex beast with many issues nowadays when it doesn't need to be.
However that still doesn't answer my original question, why is there no new legislation to cover the newly existing scenarios talked about? It seems to me that even the UK does that at least for some things, and they're the original common law country.
Eleventh.