3 ms·
At least with patents there's an argument to be made that patents are a public good because they encourage disclosure of inventions by their inventors. Copyrig
by pmoriarty 4y ago
At least with patents there's an argument to be made that patents are a public good because they encourage disclosure of inventions by their inventors.
Copyright can similarly be argued to benefit the public by encouraging creators to create.
But how does the public benefit from enforcing publicity rights?
- strbean 4y ago"If we don't enforce publicity rights, what incentive will people have to gain renown?" It's wild how nobody wrote or invented anything prior to the rise of intellectual property.
- pessimizer 4y agoOr had a face.
- bdowling 4y agoThe public benefit is that if you see a person's name or likeness used to promote a product, the public knows that the person (or their estate) consented to the use. Without publicity rights, anyone could use anyone else's name or likeness to sell anything.
- hanoz 4y agoYou appear to be still describing the estate's benefit, not the public's.
- hilbert42 4y ago"...anyone could use anyone else's name or likeness to sell anything." So what, why does it matter as long as the person is dead and there's no deception or pretense that they are directly associated with or are related to the said famous person? Essentially, the situation exists now, every newborn John Brown has appropriated the name of someone who's already died (and as we know at least one person with that name is already famous). BTW, Einstein isn't that an uncommon name, I've even met a person with that name who wasn't related to the physicist.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]