- cross-posted to:
- pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub
- cross-posted to:
- pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub
You must log in or # to comment.
I’m a twin.
Do we share? Do we need to both sign off on this before our likeness can legally be used?
Just come on down to the government run face scanner and have your features verified so we can be sure no one ever makes a copy
Do you also think all of your creative works are in a government database somewhere?
Is Google your government?
The point is, to enforce such a copyright, there needs to be a database of likenesses and their owners.
In practice, this is only going to be relevant for very few people, mainly famous personalities, their heirs, or whoever owns their likeness. However, if you wanted to enforce this for the entire population, the database would have to be under very close watch by the government, at least similar to a commercial bank if not outright a government entity. That’s necessitated by data protection rights in Europe.
No it doesn’t. It would work like Copyright currently works.
I don’t need my works to be in any database for them to be protected by copyright. I simply have to declare their license or have the license be assumed by not declaring it. That’s how it already works. You, the owner of the copyrighted works, has to sue the infringer. It’s not an automated process. Your ‘likeness’ doesn’t need to be in any database if you can prove they used your likeness. Content ID was an attempt by Google to automate the removal process on their platforms so they could wash their hands of the problem.
It would work like Copyright currently works.
Yes, exactly. Content ID is a major part of how copyright currently works. The content industry convinced US courts that merely reacting to take-down notices was not enough. Companies hosting user generated content need to proactively search for infringing content.
In the EU, written law goes somewhat further. In both the US and EU, this explicitly does not require a lawsuit. It is an automated process for most practical purposes.
I can’t predict how Danish courts will see this. There are currently cases ongoing at the EU level that will make things clearer in that respect.
Content ID is a major part of how copyright currently works.
It’s literally not a part of how Copyright currently works. It’s how Google automated copyright claims on their platforms.
None of my creative works are in Content ID. People are not being sued through Content ID. Content ID flags stuff and at worst removes it. It is up to the copyright holder to decide what they want to do.
I mean, depends on where you live, they seem to own a few governments
Denmark is literally the best country
Just wait until you find out how they treat refugees…
Maybe there’s a correlation
Touché, but in my defense, all countries suck, and mostly just serve the 1%, so the bar wasn’t high to begin with
Just wait until you find out how refugees treat the very people who pay to put food on their tables and a roof over their heads.
aka “I have no empathy for other people” and “I only read right-wing media”.
Wrong again.
Sure, daddy “all refugees are ungrateful criminals” cool
deleted by creator
I like Denmark but they’re the sole reason Russia gets to circumvent the sanctions since 2022. Don’t forget that.
You would think this was already a thing, it seems incredibly obvious and intuitive
It is a thing. Personality Rights. They exist in Danish law already. Maybe this new proposal is something else, something more specific or closes some loophole.
So is there a fair use exemption for satire?
Read the article…
You definitely don’t read every article that crosses your feed either.
I just wanted to know this one thing.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I guess this would work, but why not make a specific law? Copyright is meant for creative acts. Humans are created, in an act, but, never mind.
The answer seems obvious. This is simply a gift to famous people, who will be able to demand licensing fees without having to do any additional work. Just neo-feudalism.
The pitch makes as much sense as trying to sell ordinary copyright as a way to stop people forging documents.
Don’t worry, if your likeness lands in a torrent, it will be legal for Meta/Facebook to use it :)
Doppelgänger’s are derivative works.
there can be only one
I watched this video report/interview earlier. She found out her voice was being used in British railways as the announcer without her knowledge or consent.
Unfortunately, the article doesn’t really say why it’s necessary with personality rights already in place, or how copyright would apply differently.
“In the bill we agree and are sending an unequivocal message that everybody has the right to their own body, their own voice and their own facial features, which is apparently not how the current law is protecting people against generative AI,” Danish culture minister [said].
