> You do not have a right to put me in porn of your choosing.
He does not have the right to use your flesh to produce a porn of his choosing, but does he not have the right to employ your willing doppelgänger? There is no reason to think that likeness is exclusive.
No, you do not have the rights to my “doppelganger” because you were never granted them.
This is a bizarre argument as well.
When a news reporter is doing man-on-the-street interviews, you have to sign a release that allows them to broadcast footage of you.
It is not your physical person inside the TV, it’s a video representation of you. Just as much a doppelgänger as any deepfake. And they have to have you sign something in order to use it.
They have the exact same kind of paperwork for filming porn. Because the same legalities and rights are in play.
Just because the image of you is generated does not mean: a) it’s not an image of you b) it’s not subject to these same laws.
This is a bizarre take. If your doppelgänger stars in a porn video, or whatever else, that is for them to choose. You don't have rights to them just because you happen to share the same likeness.
> When a news reporter is doing man-on-the-street interviews, you have to sign a release that allows them to broadcast footage of you.
If used commercially, yes, without such release you could claim that you were party to the commercial business venture and thus are owed due compensation. Indeed, the broadcaster will seek protections against such a claim. But a hobbyist filming you, the "man on the street", for sheer enjoyment would not require a release.
Your usage of the term "doppelgänger" and your claim that they have agency and rights... is extremely bizarre.
Clearly it is the person producing the deepfake who has agency, and their right does not extend to the right to harm others' image.
Or to put it another way, imagine two identical twins, where one joins an extremely strict religious sect and the other becomes a porn actor.
Under what circumstance can the first twin sue the second to stop them from acting?
Is "people might think it's me" enough? Does it cross the line if the second twin uses their siblings' legal name as their stage name? What if it's just a nickname? etc.
To call a person with agency and rights a "deepfake" is the most bizarre thing we have seen yet. Get back to us when you get around to reading the discussion.
You need to re-read about the right to publicity. You are using it outside of it's legal context of for-profit commercial trademark. The commercial benefit bit is the core and single purpose of the idea. Though you may remember those cases, those cases almost certainly involved business and that case law does not apply in this discussion.
>The right of publicity is an intellectual property right that protects against the misappropriation of a person’s name, likeness, or other indicia of personal identity—such as nickname, pseudonym, voice, signature, likeness, or photograph—for commercial benefit.
A lot of people seem to get confused about that because they cannot imagine people operating as human persons and not as incorporated persons trying to make money; a particularly bad problem on HN.
Typically they don't make you sign a release. That's normally only done if they're interviewing you. I've been recorded in protests, had my picture taken with my name in the caption, and been in newspapers and on the (local) news in numerous occasions where they didn't ask me my permission nor did they ask me to sign anything.
If you're in a public place they have the right to record you. Period. A lot of publications/news sites will blur out people's faces but that's not legally necessary.
I was interviewed by a local news station once and they asked me to sign a generic waver that let them display my likeness for the purpose of reporting the news (i.e. the interview). I read the whole thing and it was very short (as far as legal agreements goes... it was only one page). That's the only time I've ever been asked to sign such a thing despite having my likeness recorded so many times (usually in the background during various events).
So someone who looks indistinguishably like you (such cases do exist) would not be allowed to film porn without your consent? What if someone generates a likeness of this person (which is indistinguishable from you) with their consent but not yours?
He does not have the right to use your flesh to produce a porn of his choosing, but does he not have the right to employ your willing doppelgänger? There is no reason to think that likeness is exclusive.