Hacker News Reader

Comment by mirimir | Hacker News Reader

OK, so apparently one can not copyright one's face.[0] Because it's a "naturally created thing". Maybe one could design a new face, copyright it, and then have it created in situ. But that seems unlikely.

On the other hand, that also means that no other faces can be copyrighted. So with suitably advanced surgical methods, one could change faces periodically. Maybe even on a whim. Perhaps one could apply technology being developed for androids.

0) https://www.quora.com/Can-you-copyright-your-own-face

Edit: Gelatin prosthetics can be quite realistic: http://www.imgrum.org/media/1204871196470265504_2263538440

View on HN

Instead of going for legal crutches, why not follow the German example where explicit consent is needed for inclusion in such databases?

AFAIK Facebook had to turn the facial recognition off in the EU, specifically for this reason.

Isn't that a legalistic strategy?

Law was invented specifically for this reason: to regulate behaviors into socially acceptable norms.

Yes, occasionally it may degenerate (as the patent trolls show), but a social issue should be solved with social/legal means, not technical ones.

Sure, I get that. But I also love SF and fantasy.

And yet, I doubt that the German laws that you cite would prevent the BND from collecting data, sharing with NSA etc, and so on.

> ...a social issue should be solved with social/legal means, not technical ones.

So, say my AR software needs to scan an environment in order to function, but the law says that I cannot scan a particular "excluded" surface (e.g. a face), how do I determine which surfaces I must exclude if I cannot scan them first inorder to discern between a public surface or a protected surface? The law needs to regulate developed technology, but by the same token, technology must be developed to enable compliance with and also enforcement of the law.

It seems to me that the solution is a joint legal/technical one. The third factor is the willingness of humans to comply with the law. The fourth factor is the ability of citizens & government to enforce the law. To see where all of this could lead, we just need to look at what happened with the utter failureof the "do not call registry" (1).

1.) http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_bills/2016/05/rob...

Ownership is a legal concept.

The only solutions to this problem are legal solutions. It is a legal problem to begin with.

> Ownership is a legal concept.

> The only solutions to this problem are legal solutions. It is a legal problem to begin with.

This is a flawed statement. Yes, "ownership" is a man-made construct (1). However, laws are only as good as our technical capacity to comply and enforce them. Take carbon emissions for example, MARPOL has put in place several tiers of ship exhaust GHG emissions controls (man-made limits) which are being implemented over several years because the technology needed to comply (and enforce) @ the ever-shrinking thresholds is still under development. However, industry is making progress and we are complying to avoid fines or operational restrictions.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property

Is a face that is created with surgical methods still not copyrightable? How about a particular style of makeup?

I defer to mikekchar's comment.

I was initially riffing on MPPA dogma. But I wasn't thinking through the implications of fair use.

Good points.

You could have a special tattoo design or a piercing. Or even just a hair style.

In the future, people can put on copyrighted temporary tattoo arts on their faces so that when their face gets captured by one of these face recognition video cams they have no choice but to smudge your face down. This might be a good start-up.. but after further searching: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/makeu... lol.

But you can copyright the markings you add to yourself (makeup, tattoo, etc.) Consider the paint and makeup markings used by cyberpunk to "hide" from cameras.

Wait. Does that mean I could make an advertising/animation film with the protagonists looking like famous actors or does another law then apply?

A few things might cover it. If you are seen as implying that the famous actors are in the film in order to sell more then that is fraud (obtaining money by false pretences). If it can be argued that the output makes the real people look bad (via bad performance or association with subject matter they are not happy with) then perhaps there is a defamation case to be had.

Of course, right or wrong, there is always just the money argument: go up against someone famous (or a company acting on their behalf) in court and see who runs out of cash reserves first...

Potentially brand and/or trademark...

Commerical rights to your own personality and likeness are protected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

Not sure of the implications of that for non-government applications of facial recognition technology, though. Sounds like an interesting potential test case.

"naturally created thing"

What about genetic modifications to a naturally created thing? I wonder how closely tied to the copyright system the patent system is, seeing as they folded under pressure against the old rule of no patenting organic material, I wonder how far off copyright is from doing similar.

Would copyrighting a picture of your face be sufficient? Other than a picture of your face, how does the form of your face exist, so as to be pointed to in a legal setting where copyright is enforced? It would have to be a picture, graphic representation. Are these 'naturally created things'?

Well, I do see that celebrities have filed lawsuits against videogame makers over profiting from their faces.[0] But the key there, I think, is "profiting". They can't prevent use in news coverage, even.

So anyway, I doubt that one could copyright one's picture. But IANAL.

0) http://www.mtv.com/news/1872058/video-game-celebrity-lawsuit...

My understanding is as follows: You absolutely can receive a copyright for a picture of a face, just as much as you can receive a copyright for a picture of a mountain. The face does not receive a copyright, and neither does a mountain.

Your likeness is clearly something in the public. I can't sue people for looking at me without paying, for instance. Your likeness could very well be a trademark, though. Especially celebrities do business expressly based on their likeness. It is their brand and they can probably protect it. So you can't use that likeness/brand without their permission (as long as they protect that mark).

IANAL, of course, and I could easily be wrong.

What if you take a picture of your face and throw in some after effects, lighting and such.

Then it's a work of art right? And those can be copyrighted.

But then I suppose your new novel copyrighted artwork is subject to fair use for eg. drivers licenses etc.

Right, fair use, and public-safety arguments.

The NSA could photoshop on a funny hat and say it was a parody.

Not to mention, copyrighting one's face must be very awkward for identical twins.

Compulsory licensing.

Copyright is just about the rights to copy, reproduce, or publish something. You need the technology to physically copy faces in the first place before even talking about things like copyrightable faces.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com