3 ms·

> I care a lot if I appear in a commercially-operated snapshot/video. This is where likeness rights come into place. A commercial entity can't use your image a

by judge2020 2y ago

> I care a lot if I appear in a commercially-operated snapshot/video. This is where likeness rights come into place. A commercial entity can't use your image as an endorsement of their product or in marketing materials without your consent, which is why many production companies err on the side of making sure they vet every face in every image of their marketing material. > The difference is that a regular person probably isn't going to include that photo/video and related metadata in a database where it will be combined with the contents of other databases and weaponized against me. As you said in the next paragraph, this is impossible to prevent without stripping people of their copyrights to use their work however they please, including by sharing on social media or uploading to a extremely value-oriented service (like Google Photos) that only provides their services for free/cheap because of the value they get from being able to "improve the product" using user content.

JohnFen 2y ago
> This is where likeness rights come into place. I don't see how likeness rights apply. I'm not talking about my image being used in marketing materials. > this is impossible to prevent without stripping people of their copyrights to use their work That's not a copyright issue. Copyright allows you to restrict how others use your works, it says nothing about how you use your works. I think you're talking about free speech rights here, and free speech rights have never been, will never be, and shouldn't be, absolute. There are many cases where those rights (like all rights) need to be balanced against other contradictory rights.
- ghaff 2y ago
  And some countries at least pretend that privacy rights are stronger vs. the right to publish photos that are not marketing/advertising although I'm sure those rights are broken many thousands of times a day. The US does not except in very specific circumstances--including for said marketing/advertising or circumstances where you had a reasonable expectation of privacy (or misrepresentation).
ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
Reminds me of this case: https://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/10/court_of_appeal.html https://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/10/court_of_appeal.html Most of us, “of a certain age,” can remember Christoff’s smiling face, on the Taster’s Choice labels, for years.

JohnFen 2y ago

> This is where likeness rights come into place. I don't see how likeness rights apply. I'm not talking about my image being used in marketing materials. > this is impossible to prevent without stripping people of their copyrights to use their work That's not a copyright issue. Copyright allows you to restrict how others use your works, it says nothing about how you use your works. I think you're talking about free speech rights here, and free speech rights have never been, will never be, and shouldn't be, absolute. There are many cases where those rights (like all rights) need to be balanced against other contradictory rights.

ghaff 2y ago
And some countries at least pretend that privacy rights are stronger vs. the right to publish photos that are not marketing/advertising although I'm sure those rights are broken many thousands of times a day. The US does not except in very specific circumstances--including for said marketing/advertising or circumstances where you had a reasonable expectation of privacy (or misrepresentation).

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago

Reminds me of this case: https://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/10/court_of_appeal.html https://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/10/court_of_appeal.html Most of us, “of a certain age,” can remember Christoff’s smiling face, on the Taster’s Choice labels, for years.