If it's clearly qualified that this is a fabrication of his voice, then what right does he have to control that? He's not being harmed. He's not being misrepresented.
I think he is being misrepresented in the song itself. People hearing it will think it's him. Whether or not that's called out in the marketing doesn't seem relevant.
As to harm, I don't know if he's being harmed or not -- but to my mind, that's not an important point. If, as I believe, it's wrong to produce works that show you doing and saying things you didn't do (without your permission), then it's wrong whether or not you were actually harmed by it. And what is harm, anyway? Being embarrassed is a kind of harm.
