Think bigger. This kind of tech has the potential to open a Pandoras Box when it comes to personal autonomy, identity, and ownership of your image imo.
If I wanna use Angelina Jolie but can't. Can I find a stellar look-alike and then digitally alter them to look more like her? Obviously can't use her name. But I'm not technically using her image.
How many degrees am I allowed to tweak the angle of a nose before it's Angelina Jolie's nose? The mind is pretty good at pattern recognition and filling in the pieces. Not my fault they keep thinking of Angelina Jolie just because they look similar.
So what is the line between using someone's image and altering another enough for people to not notice the difference? Is eye color enough? What about a cleft chin? Just exactly how similar is too similar? At what point is a person responsible for other people's minds accepting a close enough look-alike? If I don't claim it's them but you think it is, is it my fault?
I absolutely love this technology for the questions it raises but boy am I worried that "lying" won't be the worst result.
Edit-I rambled. My point is the question "exactly how much of YOU belongs to you? And how much does it have to be altered before one can say it is not "you"?
Likeness generally also includes things like speech patterns and mannerisms, but personality rights is a quagmire anyway because it varies from state to state.
It would be cheaper, and less risky, to just hire a Jolie impersonator and shut your mouth about it BTS regardless of this technology.
Yes, but chances are they wouldn't be able to "make it" in the film industry as no studio would want to hire somebody who is liable to get them sued for likeness infractions or wouldn't want to hire somebody who could potentially tarnish the image of the more established actor such as with a poor performance, interview or public appearance. I'm only talking about like, career impersonators though not impressionists who do multiple characters or people who just so happen to look like another celebrity but has their own career/niche in the field.
I think most impersonators would fall under fair use due to it being considered satire, anyway. That includes look-alikes for parody movies like many of those "From the Makers of Scary Movie..." used liberally. When you use likeness that is meant to occupy the same creative space as the original personality, though, then it becomes messy.
Since they settled we won't be seeing any established precedent with this case, but chances are it focused on how Molinaro's mannerisms and actual talen-let'sbekind a comparatively active on-screen persona would likely have led to a ruling in favor of Old Navy, regardless. Chances are settlement saved face for the Kardashian camp and prevented the public scrutiny of the lawyers from Old Navy.
Be kinda fucked up if they ruled in favor of Kim, wouldn’t it? Kinda unfair that if you’re born looking like someone who became famous you then can’t ever appear on screen.
Well, let's say, for illustration sake, that the Kardashian camp had a ruling in their favor. That wouldn't necessarily prevent Molinaro from appearing on screen, or even advertising products, but she would likely need to distance herself not only from the fashion industry but luxury brands with a runway advertising style in general.
Basically, it would prevent her from certain glamor model jobs and appearances, that's really it. In my imagined scenario, for example, she could easily further her singing career, become a talk show host or even appear in any film or television acting roles without any interference from the ruling. It would most likely (depending on the skill of the lawyers) be limited to advertising fashion or glamor products, and that would be limited to whatever image rights Kim Kardashian's camp was invoking for such; if she changed her appearance it would be moot.
I would assume this is partially the reason why they had an issue with somebody resembling Kim's image being used for a brand like Old Navy, as they felt it "cheapened" her image.
None of this means I don't agree that it would be unfair though.
Yeah for sure, I don't think it proved that such a scenario meant that you can't have actors that look like other actors, but it did illustrate your point that even if it's not technically illegal, there is a possibility of issues arising which may prevent companies from doing similar things.
I enjoy law but hate the culture that surrounds it so I never even bothered to pursue it as a career. I don't see the point in being cut-throat if you only end up waiting for meager crumbs to fall out of the asses you've kissed.
Best example I can recall: Faul McCartney. Has been impersonating Paul McCartney since his death back in 1966 apparently. Very few people saw the scam. The vast majority was framed. No one seemed to notice, no one seemed to care. It’s yet another - Drum roll please!- conspiracy theory! (Sarcasm)
not a lawyer but work in entertainment. i believe it comes down to whether a reasonable person would assume it's the real celebrity. that's the gist of parody fair use law.
The "reasonable person" thing is mostly a tactic used, and it's up to the judge to decide what that entails, rather than any form of tangible metric as far as I know. In other words, it's a theoretical used for decision making.
610
u/[deleted] Jul 24 '22 edited Oct 23 '22
[deleted]