why aren't we funding this....
-
Copyright only applies to created works. Wouldn't the owner of the copyright to you be...your parents?
Nah because I'm a transformitive work. My parents didn't make these gainz.
-
People made art before copyright.
I think you suggest a fallacy: just because a law is related to a thing, doesn't mean the law makes/helps/enhances the thing.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Before copyright, art was the domain of the rich, the amateur, or those with patronage. Copyright allows artists to make a living from their work.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Wouldn’t matter, because in America all the big IT companies (Apple, Meta, Amazon etc.) would promptly add a line to their EULAs stating that by using their service, you grant them an irrevocable, transferable lifetime licence to your copyright.
-
Wouldn’t matter, because in America all the big IT companies (Apple, Meta, Amazon etc.) would promptly add a line to their EULAs stating that by using their service, you grant them an irrevocable, transferable lifetime licence to your copyright.
Them being forced to include these terms is a win in and of itself, but it still protects people who otherwise had no protections even if they didn't use these services.
-
I'm a twin. Who owns the face? Implicit trust with two sigs required?
Technically the rights to your face are as official as any other individual documentation or rights you each had. Does your ID really belong to you? Whats stopping your twin from claiming ownership of it? How does law enforcement go about processing you? These issues have come up before and will again.
-
IMO, better to get consumer protection laws in place early and refine them over time, than not at all.
The longer these things wait, the more time corpos have to get their influence in and either stop the efforts or water them down to be entirely ineffective.
Edit:
Don't forget to read about it.
https://www.globallawtoday.com/law/legal-news/2025/06/denmarks-groundbreaking-move-copyright-for-faces-and-voices/wrote last edited by [email protected]I can imagine situations where this is a bad idea, such as making almost all journalism illegal because you don't have to legal right to cover news about an individual.
Hopefully they plan for that.
-
Them being forced to include these terms is a win in and of itself, but it still protects people who otherwise had no protections even if they didn't use these services.
I fear it would be a pyrrhic victory at best; all it takes is one instance of acceptance (via smartphone update, or an infinite number of other avenues) for it to propagate to every other entity.
That’s actually before encountering ownership issues of photos, as it usually is the photographer who owns the copyright to an image - and if they upload that photo to a service and agree for it to be trained upon; what happens next?
-
I fear it would be a pyrrhic victory at best; all it takes is one instance of acceptance (via smartphone update, or an infinite number of other avenues) for it to propagate to every other entity.
That’s actually before encountering ownership issues of photos, as it usually is the photographer who owns the copyright to an image - and if they upload that photo to a service and agree for it to be trained upon; what happens next?
I think you might be overestimating cooperation between these companies, but it's definitely a valid concern.
-
This post did not contain any content.
That possibility would interfere with them having surveillance on you everywhere you go. Today every camera you see is now ai linked and it's totally only used to keep you safe citizen /s
-
This post did not contain any content.
This is a bit weird since normally copyright applies to works that someone has created. Typically they also have to involve creativity. For example, you can't protect a database with copyright, nor can you protect the rules of a game. But, you can protect the text used to explain the rules since that is something creative.
Your voice and body aren't typically seen as creative works. They're just the result of a genetic lottery played by your parents. But, I can vaguely see how you might be able to twist the typical rules to make it count. For example, people decide on hair styles and grooming. They choose their clothing and sometimes make-up. There is a creative process there and their body is the canvas. With that kind of concept of a body being a "creative work", any photograph of that body becomes a derivative work, as would any AI version of that person.
But, this seems like the wrong approach to me. If someone has a copyright on their body, then under typical copyright rules, they can assign their copyright to someone else. Most likely, a model would have to assign the right to her body's copyright to a modelling agency. After she did that, she couldn't even take a selfie because she'd be infringing on the modelling agency's copyright.
Privacy rules make more sense, look at Germany's photographic privacy laws for example.
If the focus is on copyright, then if someone sneaks a camera into a changing room, they can only be charged with copyright violations. If they give the photos away for free, then in many cases the punishment for copyright infringement is minimal. But, if the laws are about protecting privacy, then it doesn't matter if it was a commercial copyright infringement or if it was simply collecting someone's nude photo for personal use. The issue isn't the copyright infringement, it's the privacy violation.
-
This is a bit weird since normally copyright applies to works that someone has created. Typically they also have to involve creativity. For example, you can't protect a database with copyright, nor can you protect the rules of a game. But, you can protect the text used to explain the rules since that is something creative.
Your voice and body aren't typically seen as creative works. They're just the result of a genetic lottery played by your parents. But, I can vaguely see how you might be able to twist the typical rules to make it count. For example, people decide on hair styles and grooming. They choose their clothing and sometimes make-up. There is a creative process there and their body is the canvas. With that kind of concept of a body being a "creative work", any photograph of that body becomes a derivative work, as would any AI version of that person.
But, this seems like the wrong approach to me. If someone has a copyright on their body, then under typical copyright rules, they can assign their copyright to someone else. Most likely, a model would have to assign the right to her body's copyright to a modelling agency. After she did that, she couldn't even take a selfie because she'd be infringing on the modelling agency's copyright.
Privacy rules make more sense, look at Germany's photographic privacy laws for example.
If the focus is on copyright, then if someone sneaks a camera into a changing room, they can only be charged with copyright violations. If they give the photos away for free, then in many cases the punishment for copyright infringement is minimal. But, if the laws are about protecting privacy, then it doesn't matter if it was a commercial copyright infringement or if it was simply collecting someone's nude photo for personal use. The issue isn't the copyright infringement, it's the privacy violation.
You don't have to assign the copyright to someone else for them to use it. You can license them to use it.
-
You have the right, but will you have the ability when the water starts to pour?
Jokes on them, I sweat so much I basically waterboard myself every time I do yardwork with a mask on.
-
America would never do this. You don't have any rights here. We have the right to remain silent and thats about it
wrote last edited by [email protected]Land Of The Free(TM)
-
No they mean my sweet golden nectar. Open up for the pee pee train.
-
You don't have to assign the copyright to someone else for them to use it. You can license them to use it.
Sure, but that's not how it tends to work. That's why there are all these stories about singers being mistreated by their record labels. The record labels could just license the works from the artist. But, that gives the artist some control. Record labels much prefer a situation where they're fully in control, and own everything the artist produces. It's typically only the top 0.1% of music acts that are so powerful that they're able to take control over their own output and license it instead of simply assigning the copyright.
I'm sure it would be the same for modelling if there was a copyright to someone's body. The modelling agency wouldn't want to risk that the model could go to a rival agency. A standard modelling contract would then involve assigning the rights to the model's body copyright to the modelling agency, and only the most powerful and in-demand models could possibly resist that and keep their rights and only license their images.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Now if only Denmark didn’t steal indigenous people’s babies because they were victims of a crime and/or couldn’t cite the capital of Sudan. If you don’t know what I’m talking about don’t search it unless you are prepared for some new awful things to feel horrible about.
-
Wouldn’t matter, because in America all the big IT companies (Apple, Meta, Amazon etc.) would promptly add a line to their EULAs stating that by using their service, you grant them an irrevocable, transferable lifetime licence to your copyright.
Pretty sure that These Lines in eulas would not be valid.
-
Before copyright, art was the domain of the rich, the amateur, or those with patronage. Copyright allows artists to make a living from their work.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I think the history doesn't support this super well; especially not for the media you mention.
Before the printing press, all creative work was expensive without copyright, and so typical folk could only access what they and their community could make. There were still artists in communities, but they were closer to hobbyists (see the traveling minstrel, playing/reading/singing for relatively cheap. The masses knew Beowulf). You still see some of this today, with say yard art made by a neighbor (either on the side, for cost, or in their retirement). In short, art was not just for the rich, but you could argue good art was. This remains true today regardless of copyright for artwork where materials are expensive/scarce.
In the modern day, most of the art I experience is mass copied. Materials are cheap, eg copying an mp3 is essentially free. If there were no copyright, we would see either the results of amateurs and students (like we do on sound-cloud, for eg), or we would still have patrons (and the resulting products would often be leaked to the masses). Note that the printing press was out for awhile before copyright appeared in many countries. The inability to copyright textbooks in Germany made for an industrial boom. Publishing houses still produced new works essentially the same way that Youtubers deal with copy-cats; a better experience for patrons to fund the cheap stuff (which competes at cost with the copies).
So while I buy that the quality of art might drop without copyright, I don't think it drops enough for me to be very sad. And the added accessibility of academia, education, and cultural icons would be amazing.
-
This is a bit weird since normally copyright applies to works that someone has created. Typically they also have to involve creativity. For example, you can't protect a database with copyright, nor can you protect the rules of a game. But, you can protect the text used to explain the rules since that is something creative.
Your voice and body aren't typically seen as creative works. They're just the result of a genetic lottery played by your parents. But, I can vaguely see how you might be able to twist the typical rules to make it count. For example, people decide on hair styles and grooming. They choose their clothing and sometimes make-up. There is a creative process there and their body is the canvas. With that kind of concept of a body being a "creative work", any photograph of that body becomes a derivative work, as would any AI version of that person.
But, this seems like the wrong approach to me. If someone has a copyright on their body, then under typical copyright rules, they can assign their copyright to someone else. Most likely, a model would have to assign the right to her body's copyright to a modelling agency. After she did that, she couldn't even take a selfie because she'd be infringing on the modelling agency's copyright.
Privacy rules make more sense, look at Germany's photographic privacy laws for example.
If the focus is on copyright, then if someone sneaks a camera into a changing room, they can only be charged with copyright violations. If they give the photos away for free, then in many cases the punishment for copyright infringement is minimal. But, if the laws are about protecting privacy, then it doesn't matter if it was a commercial copyright infringement or if it was simply collecting someone's nude photo for personal use. The issue isn't the copyright infringement, it's the privacy violation.
I can only assume that this has to do with international law. Copyright is pretty well protected and has a huge lobby behind it. Whereas nobody actually seems to care about privacy.
-
I can only assume that this has to do with international law. Copyright is pretty well protected and has a huge lobby behind it. Whereas nobody actually seems to care about privacy.
You might think that, but try using Google's Street View in Germany. Almost the entire country is unavailable due to their privacy laws.
