4 ms·

It sounds like a good idea, but I can imagine the implementation can be quite difficult. If I look exactly like another person, who has the right to decide what

by pu_pe 1y ago

It sounds like a good idea, but I can imagine the implementation can be quite difficult. If I look exactly like another person, who has the right to decide what I can do with my own image?

zakki 1y ago
There is always outlier (i look like someone) in anything. However this universal approach is a win for the people.
HPsquared 1y ago
The same problem applies to regular copyright. Different people will make similar, maybe even identical, works fairly often. So probably a similar solution? Not sure. The wrinkle being you can't exactly change your own features.
- ImHereToVote 1y ago
  Not with that attitude you can't.
  - HPsquared 1y ago
    Ironically I could see that idea being used in "hard authoritarian" style: a state could require that people MUST have distinct and uniquely registered faces to allow tracking via facial recognition.
wiseowise 1y ago
It works both ways. You’d have to find compromise.
medstrom 1y ago
I imagine both of you would have the power to license out your likeness. Same situation as today: if you have a lookalike out there who does pornography, and somebody you know runs across it, they'll think it's you and not much you can do about that except explain.
- LocalH 1y ago
  We live under a copyright regime where four notes is enough to be an infringing musical work. Dollars to doughnuts that this law is used against people not misrepresenting themselves, who happen to look like famous people.
  - medstrom 1y ago
    I mean that you wouldn't be able to "infringe" since you are also an owner.
gambiting 1y ago
Unfortunately, the law is already quite stupid around this. There have been many cases where a company wanted to hire say, actor X to voice their commercial, actor refused, so they hired someone else with a nearly identical voice, the original actor sued and won(!!!!!) because apparently it's their "signature" voice. I disagree because obviously that means the other person has no right to make money using their voice now, at no fault of their own? But yeah I'd imagine you'd have the same problem here - you can't generate a picture of say, Brad Pitt even if you say well actually this isn't Brad Pitt, it's just a person who happens to look exactly like him(which is obviously entirely possible and could happen).
- Propelloni 1y ago
  Yeah, but those cases hinged on the fact that the ad company tried to hire the actor first, thus demonstrating intent of using this actor. Had they hired Nearly Identical Voice directly they probably would not have lost.
- detaro 1y ago
  These cases generally are not about just someone that happened to sound the same, but someone who was choosen specifically and directed to sound like the imitated person. Even explicitly looking for similarity is generally fine, calls for voice actors will include references to well-known VAs as "the sort of thing we are looking for", only imitation is going to far. (In music, some other cases have been about suspected misuse of actual recordings, e.g. a cover band being sued because the original musician believes they actually used one of their recordings, and disproving that can be tricky. I don't think that can as easily happen with look-alikes)
Propelloni 1y ago
Person A will have the rights to their image, person B to theirs. If person A looks like person B, person B still has no say in what person A does with their image and vice versa. Seems obvious to me. I guess you worry about stuff like person A looks like celebrity person B and sells their image for, say, frosty frootloop commercials. As long as A is not impersonating B, ie. claiming to be B, I can't see a problem. "Hi, my name is Troy McClure, you may know me for looking like Serena Williams." I guess it will be the decade of the doppelgänger agencies, like in Double Trouble ;) [1] [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087481/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_1_tt_8_nm_0_in_0_q_double%2520trouble https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087481/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_1_tt_8...
paganel 1y ago
The State does. The same State which now has an extra-power over its subjects.

by pu_pe 1y ago

It sounds like a good idea, but I can imagine the implementation can be quite difficult. If I look exactly like another person, who has the right to decide what I can do with my own image?

zakki 1y ago

There is always outlier (i look like someone) in anything. However this universal approach is a win for the people.

HPsquared 1y ago

The same problem applies to regular copyright. Different people will make similar, maybe even identical, works fairly often. So probably a similar solution? Not sure. The wrinkle being you can't exactly change your own features.

ImHereToVote 1y ago
Not with that attitude you can't.
- HPsquared 1y ago
  Ironically I could see that idea being used in "hard authoritarian" style: a state could require that people MUST have distinct and uniquely registered faces to allow tracking via facial recognition.

wiseowise 1y ago

It works both ways. You’d have to find compromise.

medstrom 1y ago

I imagine both of you would have the power to license out your likeness. Same situation as today: if you have a lookalike out there who does pornography, and somebody you know runs across it, they'll think it's you and not much you can do about that except explain.

LocalH 1y ago
We live under a copyright regime where four notes is enough to be an infringing musical work. Dollars to doughnuts that this law is used against people not misrepresenting themselves, who happen to look like famous people.
- medstrom 1y ago
  I mean that you wouldn't be able to "infringe" since you are also an owner.

gambiting 1y ago

Unfortunately, the law is already quite stupid around this. There have been many cases where a company wanted to hire say, actor X to voice their commercial, actor refused, so they hired someone else with a nearly identical voice, the original actor sued and won(!!!!!) because apparently it's their "signature" voice. I disagree because obviously that means the other person has no right to make money using their voice now, at no fault of their own? But yeah I'd imagine you'd have the same problem here - you can't generate a picture of say, Brad Pitt even if you say well actually this isn't Brad Pitt, it's just a person who happens to look exactly like him(which is obviously entirely possible and could happen).

Propelloni 1y ago
Yeah, but those cases hinged on the fact that the ad company tried to hire the actor first, thus demonstrating intent of using this actor. Had they hired Nearly Identical Voice directly they probably would not have lost.
detaro 1y ago
These cases generally are not about just someone that happened to sound the same, but someone who was choosen specifically and directed to sound like the imitated person. Even explicitly looking for similarity is generally fine, calls for voice actors will include references to well-known VAs as "the sort of thing we are looking for", only imitation is going to far. (In music, some other cases have been about suspected misuse of actual recordings, e.g. a cover band being sued because the original musician believes they actually used one of their recordings, and disproving that can be tricky. I don't think that can as easily happen with look-alikes)

Propelloni 1y ago

Person A will have the rights to their image, person B to theirs. If person A looks like person B, person B still has no say in what person A does with their image and vice versa. Seems obvious to me. I guess you worry about stuff like person A looks like celebrity person B and sells their image for, say, frosty frootloop commercials. As long as A is not impersonating B, ie. claiming to be B, I can't see a problem. "Hi, my name is Troy McClure, you may know me for looking like Serena Williams." I guess it will be the decade of the doppelgänger agencies, like in Double Trouble ;) [1] [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087481/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_1_tt_8_nm_0_in_0_q_double%2520trouble https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087481/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_1_tt_8...

paganel 1y ago

The State does. The same State which now has an extra-power over its subjects.