4 ms·
Yeah, influential people shouldn't get to functionally own a "likeness." It's not a fingerprint. An actor shouldn't credibly worry about getting work because a
by a_wild_dandan 2y ago
Yeah, influential people shouldn't get to functionally own a "likeness." It's not a fingerprint. An actor shouldn't credibly worry about getting work because a rich/famous doppelganger exists (which may threaten clientele).
Explicit brand reference? Bad. Circumstantial insinuation? Let it go.
- plasticchris 2y agoWhat else does a famous actor have but a likeness? What if their likeness is appropriated to support a cause they disagree with, or a job they declined for moral or ethical reasons? The public will still associate them first and they will bear the consequences.
- a_wild_dandan 2y agoA famous actor still has acting, name recognition, and generally mountains of cash. But should not get to call dibs on some vague "likeness" simply because they got hot first. Someone shouldn't damage/lose their livelihood because their famous doppelganger iced them out.