4 ms·

Is there a reason that this isn't covered under existing Personality rights (which are, admittedly patchwork in the US[1], but do generally exist in some form t

Is there a reason that this isn't covered under existing Personality rights (which are, admittedly patchwork in the US[1], but do generally exist in some form throughout the union)? I can't make a video game with Brock Purdy as QB, without paying, so a deepfake of him playing football is probably also covered? 1: Indiana has the strongest in the US. The name, image, likeness, signature, photograph, gestures, distinctive appearances, and mannerisms of Woodrow Wilson are still protected in Indiana (100 years after death, and he died in '24).

yieldcrv 3y ago
I was just wondering that too, I’ve dealt with release forms before and that concept is entirely at the state level Its starting to look like the AI scare will force an interstate commerce based regulation on image and likeness release thats a good thing, finally some harmonization on this concept
- mikem170 3y ago
  How big a deal is harmonizing things across state lines? If no federal constitutional dictates are being violated does harmonization just amount to a convenience for big companies, at the expense of local self rule as per the constitution? Worst case you end up with multi-nationals bribing one set of federal politicians to get national laws enshrined. One stop corruption.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    not that big of a deal? the regulation of interstate commerce is an unlimited dictate thats also part of the constitution, as all commerce is interstate commerce for the last century there is no federalism left in this country outside of what the federal government merely tolerates from the states, and in the parallel judicial systems against persons there is no prioritization of “local self rule”, an ethos of the original republic and 10th amendment, the federal government has subjugated all states since then and throws them a bone here and there since it technically derives support from the collection of states with that in mind, this specific industry of image and likeness releases has been long overdue for one framework to rule them all. the issue isnt big companies, its small operators and enthusiasts that dont really know what text to put in their release forms and always have been operating in multiple states.
  - Animats 3y ago
    There's a constitutional question. Congress does not have the authority to create new forms of intellectual property. Copyrights and patents, that's it. That's why the US doesn't have database copyright. States can go further. States have a "general police power" - they can make almost anything illegal.
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      uhhhh congress can do that if it wanted it can recognize any forms of property including IP the stuff about copyrights and patents isn’t mentioned in the constitution, those are forms of IP Congress passed as instructed by the article of the constitution to promote arts and science by granting temporary monopolies
      - aidenn0 3y ago
        Not quite true; it is constrained by the constitution's use of the term "Writings and Discoveries" which is why copyright requires the work to be in a "fixed form"
        yieldcrv 3y ago
        yes, just for the temporary monopolies thing. but outside of that article it can recognize any kind of asset for at least regulation
      - Animats 3y ago
        Sigh. Yes, it is mentioned in the US Constitution. U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8: The Congress shall have Power To ... Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; That's where copyrights and patents come from. It's an enumerated power, and Congress is limited to what's written there. Congress can't create entirely new kinds of intellectual property. See Feist vs. Rural Telephone.
        yieldcrv 3y ago
crazygringo 3y ago
I also don't understand -- from the article, it's not clear what is changing at all. My only guess is that maybe this is applying to non-commercial use as well? Like maybe this is intended to make deepfake videos illegal altogether? Posting them to YouTube or social media or anything? If they're not presented as parody, but rather being claimed as real-life footage? But the article doesn't say that or even imply it.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  Posting them on YouTube is very much commercial use, no?

yieldcrv 3y ago

I was just wondering that too, I’ve dealt with release forms before and that concept is entirely at the state level Its starting to look like the AI scare will force an interstate commerce based regulation on image and likeness release thats a good thing, finally some harmonization on this concept

mikem170 3y ago
How big a deal is harmonizing things across state lines? If no federal constitutional dictates are being violated does harmonization just amount to a convenience for big companies, at the expense of local self rule as per the constitution? Worst case you end up with multi-nationals bribing one set of federal politicians to get national laws enshrined. One stop corruption.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  not that big of a deal? the regulation of interstate commerce is an unlimited dictate thats also part of the constitution, as all commerce is interstate commerce for the last century there is no federalism left in this country outside of what the federal government merely tolerates from the states, and in the parallel judicial systems against persons there is no prioritization of “local self rule”, an ethos of the original republic and 10th amendment, the federal government has subjugated all states since then and throws them a bone here and there since it technically derives support from the collection of states with that in mind, this specific industry of image and likeness releases has been long overdue for one framework to rule them all. the issue isnt big companies, its small operators and enthusiasts that dont really know what text to put in their release forms and always have been operating in multiple states.
- Animats 3y ago
  There's a constitutional question. Congress does not have the authority to create new forms of intellectual property. Copyrights and patents, that's it. That's why the US doesn't have database copyright. States can go further. States have a "general police power" - they can make almost anything illegal.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    uhhhh congress can do that if it wanted it can recognize any forms of property including IP the stuff about copyrights and patents isn’t mentioned in the constitution, those are forms of IP Congress passed as instructed by the article of the constitution to promote arts and science by granting temporary monopolies
    - aidenn0 3y ago
      Not quite true; it is constrained by the constitution's use of the term "Writings and Discoveries" which is why copyright requires the work to be in a "fixed form"
      - yieldcrv 3y ago
        yes, just for the temporary monopolies thing. but outside of that article it can recognize any kind of asset for at least regulation
    - Animats 3y ago
      Sigh. Yes, it is mentioned in the US Constitution. U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8: The Congress shall have Power To ... Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; That's where copyrights and patents come from. It's an enumerated power, and Congress is limited to what's written there. Congress can't create entirely new kinds of intellectual property. See Feist vs. Rural Telephone.
      - yieldcrv 3y ago

crazygringo 3y ago

I also don't understand -- from the article, it's not clear what is changing at all. My only guess is that maybe this is applying to non-commercial use as well? Like maybe this is intended to make deepfake videos illegal altogether? Posting them to YouTube or social media or anything? If they're not presented as parody, but rather being claimed as real-life footage? But the article doesn't say that or even imply it.

aidenn0 3y ago
Posting them on YouTube is very much commercial use, no?