https://rinckerlaw.com/name-image-and-likeness-how-to-protec...
Or if I get tattoo wit logo, is that "my own feature" and now I have copyright?!
This is like giving copyright to a name, there will be collisions and conflicts.
Punitive damages are very rare or non-existent depending on the country and the loser of the case usually has to pay the winning party's legal fees. There just isn't the incentive to sue someone over something silly like what you've mentioned.
I sure as hell don't.
It's also why the idea that "code is law" popular in certain circles was always misguided.
Imagine I drew a Coca Cola logo in paint. Now I own the copyright to my picture of the Coca Cola logo. Next I stick it on my new brand of soda. That’s not allowed.
Coca-cola own rights to their logo. You should own rights to your face and voice.
What specific behaviors does this forbid that weren't already forbidden?
In your case as politician is a public person you can show him, but blur other people.
Same situation as today: if you have a lookalike out there who does pornography, and somebody you know runs across it, they'll think it's you and not much you can do about that except explain.
Dollars to doughnuts that this law is used against people not misrepresenting themselves, who happen to look like famous people.
There have been many cases where a company wanted to hire say, actor X to voice their commercial, actor refused, so they hired someone else with a nearly identical voice, the original actor sued and won(!!!!!) because apparently it's their "signature" voice.
I disagree because obviously that means the other person has no right to make money using their voice now, at no fault of their own?
But yeah I'd imagine you'd have the same problem here - you can't generate a picture of say, Brad Pitt even if you say well actually this isn't Brad Pitt, it's just a person who happens to look exactly like him(which is obviously entirely possible and could happen).
I guess you worry about stuff like person A looks like celebrity person B and sells their image for, say, frosty frootloop commercials. As long as A is not impersonating B, ie. claiming to be B, I can't see a problem. "Hi, my name is Troy McClure, you may know me for looking like Serena Williams." I guess it will be the decade of the doppelgänger agencies, like in Double Trouble ;) [1]
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087481/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_1_tt_8...
Win-win. For the lawyers.
There's one photographer, François Brunelle, who has a project where he takes pictures of doppelgängers: http://www.francoisbrunelle.com/webn/e-project.html
Public photography? does this mean your image cant be sold if take in public? I'm sure there are many other scenarios that would be interesting to argue about as well.
We moved past content scarcity decades ago and we are squarely in the attention scarcity regime. We use copyright against itself to have open source. We prefer interactivity and collaboration, as in open source, social networks or online games. Copyright stands in the path of collaboration and interaction.
Will companies now need to license "the likeness" of people too? Will "likeness" be property to be sold or rented?
There is no creativity involved whatsoever. Plenty of people look similar enough that they share "copyrighted" features. Cartoons of prominent people = copyright infringement? (Europe has a long history of judgments and precedents that prominent people can be parodied etc., how will that square with a fancy copyright protection.) You can principially make money on your copyright, so if a twin "sells" their face rights and the other twin demands a share, then what?
Just make deepfakes a specific crime and do not mess with IP any further. It is already a mess.
eesmith•3h ago
rusk•2h ago
Logiar•2h ago
harvey9•2h ago
exiguus•1h ago