This is specifically covered in cases like Midler v. Ford, and legally it matters what the use is for. If it's for parody/etc it's completely different from attempting to impersonate and convince customers it is someone else.

Midler v. Ford is a bit different from CahtGPT in that it was about a direct copy of a Midler song for a car ad, not just a voice sounding similar saying different stuff.

You can hear them here:

Midler version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFVhL0jbutU&t=22s

Car ad https://youtu.be/hxShNrpdVRs

One of male voice actor contractors impersonated Julia Childs for a commercial years ago, writing was in a parodying style. She sued and won.

Parody is a protected fair use case.

You can make a Saturday Night Live sketch making fun of Darth Vader.

You cannot use a Darth Vader imitator to sell light sabers.

Sure, you can't sell light sabers. Can't you use a Darth Vader voice impersonator to sell vacuums? What about a voice that sounds like generic background actor 12?

You seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that OpenAI is selling conversational AIs.

Exactly, parody isn't a commercial product.

There's a distinction between parody and impersonation, yes.