Law would hold US individuals and firms liable for ripping off a person's digital likeness.
  • General_Effort@lemmy.worldEnglish
    53·
    3 months ago

    This is so that famous people and their heirs can get more free money.

    The only thing this does for ordinary people is make them poorer.

    • Alexstarfire@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      3 months ago

      I don’t see how this makes ordinary people poorer. Were you making money off of other people’s likeness?

      • Saledovil@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        7·
        3 months ago

        While there’s almost infinite potential human faces, all human faces look somewhat alike, because, they’re human faces. My thesis is basically that if you draw or 3d model a human, chances are that there’s at least one famous person who looks similar enough for lawsuit even if you didn’t know they existed beforehand, making you liable to get sued if you try to monetize your artwork. So, basically, if this were to pass, artists would no longer be allowed to publish/monetize art that depicts humans, even if their art is completely original.

        Also, did you know that the NFT marketplace Open Sea used to ignore DMCA takedown requests? They assumed that the artists whose art they hosted would not be able to afford a lawsuit, and since they didn’t get sued into the ground, I assume they were right. It would similar with this. If you’re an average person, you wouldn’t be able to afford to sue if Disney or such uses your appearance without your permission.

        And that’s how this would make life worse for the average person.

        • Alexstarfire@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          3 months ago

          AFAIK, this is not talking about paintings, sketches, etc. It explicitly says highly realistic. Also, it specifies digitally.

          Also, wouldn’t your argument about Disney have been true before this law?

          • Saledovil@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            7·
            3 months ago

            Yes, I think Copyright lasts way to long. In fact, I believe that in an ideal world, copyright wouldn’t exist, because artists should be free to create whatever they please. So if a painter wants to paint, say Han Solo wearing a silly hat, they should be free to do so, but under copyright, they can be sued if they do so. Of course I realize that artists need to sustain themselves, and therefore need to monetize their artwork, hence we have copyright. But even then, it should be limited to, say, 20 years from creation of the work. That way, the artists would be able to monetize their work, even handsomely, but it would stop cultural landlords like Disney from arising.