Technology

59627 readers

2807 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

220

AI fraud act could outlaw parodies, political cartoons, and more (reason.com)

submitted 10 months ago by RedditEnjoyer@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago (13 children)

Frankly, people should be entitled to own their likenesses. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like the examples they mention in the article; - parody, public figures, film rights, etc. - are already pretty well carved out in the courts.

I can't just make a biopic about Michael Jackson... I would need rights to the footage and permission from his estate.

I can't use a photo of Tom Hanks to promote a film he isn't i, even if I took the photo (and therefore own it). If I don't sign the release, they have to blur my face in a documentary.

Celebrities already have certain established rights to the use of their likeness, and in this day and age those rights should really extend to everyone.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

it seems like the examples they mention in the article; - parody, public figures, film rights, etc. - are already pretty well carved out in the courts.

I can’t just make a biopic about Michael Jackson

Is Michael Jackson not a public figure?

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

There is such a thing as life rights. According to this firm, they act as a protection against lawsuits related to publicity rights, invasion of privacy, and defamation.

So, a documentarian could report on the public aspects of Michael Jackson's life, but if I wanted to discuss or speculate about his private life, I would need rights from his estate.

There are lots of exceptions, such as public interest, etc. But again, I'm not a lawyer. (Is there a legal lemmy presence?)

[–] LibreFish@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Not a lawyer, but AFAIK life rights looks like some sort of name they applied to whatever waiver/contract they made.

As long as you're not making up lies knowingly, you can legally discuss and speculate any details of anybody's life here in the US.

load more comments (11 replies)