5 ms·
This is a bizarre take. If your doppelgänger stars in a porn video, or whatever else, that is for them to choose. You don't have rights to them just because you
by randomdata 2y ago
This is a bizarre take. If your doppelgänger stars in a porn video, or whatever else, that is for them to choose. You don't have rights to them just because you happen to share the same likeness.
> When a news reporter is doing man-on-the-street interviews, you have to sign a release that allows them to broadcast footage of you.
If used commercially, yes, without such release you could claim that you were party to the commercial business venture and thus are owed due compensation. Indeed, the broadcaster will seek protections against such a claim. But a hobbyist filming you, the "man on the street", for sheer enjoyment would not require a release.
- ordinaryradical 2y agoRead about the right to publicity. It has already been invoked for involuntary pornography and these cases will keep being won. Your autonomy to make images can’t infringe on my autonomy to choose not to be in them. It’s not a matter of commerce, it’s privacy.
- superkuh 2y agoYou need to re-read about the right to publicity. You are using it outside of it's legal context of for-profit commercial trademark. The commercial benefit bit is the core and single purpose of the idea. Though you may remember those cases, those cases almost certainly involved business and that case law does not apply in this discussion. >The right of publicity is an intellectual property right that protects against the misappropriation of a person’s name, likeness, or other indicia of personal identity—such as nickname, pseudonym, voice, signature, likeness, or photograph—for commercial benefit. A lot of people seem to get confused about that because they cannot imagine people operating as human persons and not as incorporated persons trying to make money; a particularly bad problem on HN.
- polotics 2y agoYour usage of the term "doppelgänger" and your claim that they have agency and rights... is extremely bizarre. Clearly it is the person producing the deepfake who has agency, and their right does not extend to the right to harm others' image.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- randomdata 2y agoTo call a person with agency and rights a "deepfake" is the most bizarre thing we have seen yet. Get back to us when you get around to reading the discussion.
- polotics 2y agoI thought that by Doppelganger you meant a deepfake.
- richbell 2y agoA doppelgänger refers to a real person that happens to share your likeness.
- Terr_ 2y agoOr to put it another way, imagine two identical twins, where one joins an extremely strict religious sect and the other becomes a porn actor. Under what circumstance can the first twin sue the second to stop them from acting? Is "people might think it's me" enough? Does it cross the line if the second twin uses their siblings' legal name as their stage name? What if it's just a nickname? etc.