this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
283 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

59963 readers
3495 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/20181716

Law would hold US individuals and firms liable for ripping off a person's digital likeness.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Chozo@fedia.io 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Now I'm curious. I wonder if there is, or would ever be, any similar protection for physical likeness. Statues, wax models, action figures, etc. I'm sure that's probably a much smaller concern, though.

Also, I love that the example AI image they provide looks like high-T Mark Zuckerberg.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

wonder if there is, or would ever be, any similar protection for physical likeness.

Yes, there is, even thought the need to execute such a right is quite rare.

It is not a derivate from copyright, as you might think, but a detail of your general personality rights (basic human rights).

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's not the legal situation in the US. I don't think this rather conservative take can be considered a global standard.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's not the legal situation in the US.

That's right. In Usa they have a rather poor understanding of human rights (and maybe even less acceptance)

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Funny. It's usually the US that's considered ultra-capitalist. The right to free expression is globally recognized. The idea that everything should be capital, generating rents for the rich, not so much.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't know why you are talking about capital here. It is not about capital at all when we talk about human rights.

The right to free expression is globally recognized

That's the one that is a little over-emphasized in Usa :) even though it is not the most important one. You should start to read about all the others as well.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

In economics, capital goods or capital are "those durable produced goods that are in turn used as productive inputs for further production" of goods and services. [...] Capital goods can also be immaterial, when they take the form of intellectual property. Many production processes require the intellectual property to (legally) produce their products. (From Wikipedia)

The bill in OP is about turning a person's likeness into capital. It will allow famous people to extract a rent from society. IE get free money at the expense of everyone else.

You should start to read about all the others as well.

I have. You haven't. You're an absolute tool.

[–] dch82@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago

Also, do drawings and portrayals in media, etc. count?