Who owns Einstein? The battle for the world’s most famous face
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
I'm unable to see the connection between a formula and Einstein's face.
He lies, you write an article about it, he sues you to death and you settle.
Copyright can similarly be argued to benefit the public by encouraging creators to create.
But how does the public benefit from enforcing publicity rights?
It's wild how nobody wrote or invented anything prior to the rise of intellectual property.
So what, why does it matter as long as the person is dead and there's no deception or pretense that they are directly associated with or are related to the said famous person?
Essentially, the situation exists now, every newborn John Brown has appropriated the name of someone who's already died (and as we know at least one person with that name is already famous).
BTW, Einstein isn't that an uncommon name, I've even met a person with that name who wasn't related to the physicist.
Lawyers!
How long will it be before we're forced to pay to have an image or likeness of Plato or Aristotle on the cover of a book?
The identities of these people are already owned by the public - hence the existing interest in them - and are thus already in the public domain.
As I see it, that vested interests can corrupt the democratic process by having laws introduced that would remove information that's already in the public domain for their own benefit is, of itself, antidemocratic.
* The money is going to a Top University.
* There are strict limitations about how the images / brand can be used. I especially like the idea of not mis-quoting and fabricating quotes associated with Einstein.
* Does the "Top University" need the cash? Who is it coming from, and who is to say they do not need it more?
* Evidence suggests this has not in practice been prevented.
From 2016 - "The university is mired in debt amounting to nearly NIS 13 billion ($3.4 billion) over employees’ pensions."
Especially when it is already so well-funded.
Stanford disproprotinately benefits very elite of an already wealthy nation. That's okay, but purl-clutching like they need every penny is kinda gross.
It is common knowledge that Stanford is really a front for a real estate venture.
(And pro-tip re linked post: ideas carry better without cryptoracist prose.)
That doesn't seem that great.
Many of them could theoretically operate indefinitely without ever charging tuition, if the funds were hypothetically allowed to be used in that way.
Someone did some napkin math on this for Harvard on Quora: https://qr.ae/pvAQ7v
Now, this person didn't do a great job accounting for inflation, but I do think a professionally managed endowment can get much better than a 3% return on its investments to cover inflation.
Harvard's endowment is pretty close to the same size as Stanford.
It's really just the small, less prestigious universities that have financial issues [1]. The Stanfords and Harvards of the world don't need any help.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/27/more-colleges-face-bankruptc...
Listen to yourself. This is like saying "we have a perfect earthquake prediction model, except it doesn't predict certain types of earthquakes"
This comment along with the massive down-votes that my posts have received proves that a majority of HN is absolutely clueless about running businesses and I'm glad for that
They estimated that free tuition for all students would cost 3% per year, but the S&P 500 has returned over 10% yearly over the last 100 years, 7% adjusted for inflation. [1]
This math also assumes that the school never receives another donation ever again, which is quite unlikely.
It should also be obvious that my point isn't that schools should literally run entirely on their endowment. My point is: giving money to a school like Harvard or Stanford isn't really an act of charity at this point, because they are juggernaut institutions that are too big to fail. They don't need to be raking in licensing fees from images and quotes from people who have been dead for decades.
It's also interesting that, in your last sentence, you are implying that HN viewers don't know anything about running a business, but last I checked we were talking about universities. There's a little bit of irony here: my whole argument revolves around the fact that these supposedly "non-profit" educational institutions are acting very much like businesses in ways probably shouldn't be.
In my view, images and text for deceased historical figures like Albert Einstein and Martin Luther King, Jr. should be part of the public domain much sooner than copyright law currently allows so that we can all enjoy and learn from their legacy freely without capitalist incentives.
I think Reddit is a better place to complain about fake Internet points. I highly recommend it!
It is not about internet points, but the fact that how anti-capitalists the intellectual elites have become despite massively benefiting from it and the single biggest factor that has driven down poverty on a global scale.
No one read the article. It was beautiful well-written. Instead HN, like reddit went all pitch-fork "Hurr Durr, Bad Capitalists"
Anyone who dares question the status-quo is an "anti-capitalist," a snobby "intellectual elite," or is a very stupid member of a dangerous mob, "hur dur.”
An institution being a net-positive and the institution needing reform and oversight are not mutually exclusive concepts.
I most certainly read the article, and I still don't understand why anyone's allowed to own exclusive rights to profit off of someone who has been dead as long as Albert Einstein. I can’t think of anyone who would benefit from that system besides the rights-holders.
I'll see you over at https://einstein.biz, maybe I'll buy you a t-shirt or a mug.
i) if Einstein had patented his ideas and had left Billions of Dollars to a top university, would it have been ok with you?. To answer your question, Universities are institutions that last centuries. To survive and attract the best in the world for 300 years, there is no limit of cash that such an institution will need (they need to survive economic crashes, world wars, climate catastrophes, pandemics etc)
ii) You don't have counterfactual evidence. There is a difference between mis-quoting in the comment section vs in Billion $$$ Marketing campaigns
As Abraham Lincoln once said:
"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
Uh oh, time to throw me in jail, right!?
I realize that misinformation can be a powerfully bad thing in this world, but I think there must be better ways to deal with it than turning a dead person's image into a lucrative capitalist enterprise.
Apple gets to use Einstein's image to advertise their products because they could afford to pay the $600,000 fee, but I can't use Einstein's image to promote my business because, sorry, I'm not a worthy enough capitalist.
> The money is going to a Top University.
Oh, that makes it all better! Top Universities (TM) have the unique ability to avoid all issues monetary related to corruption prevalent in other institutions. (/s)
I'm going to guess that this money is going to be spent on things like academics, perhaps the next Einstein will earn $9 million per year to perform groundbreaking research!
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/02/06/congressional-probe-int...
As close as it gets to being an objectively clickbait title.
40% of the world population are from India and China (a Non-Jesus country).
Kids at a very young age are introduced to Einstein in pretty much every school. Mona Lisa not so much.
In fact, growing up, I didn't know about Mona Lisa till about age 20
Also, we have very few photos of Jesus or the subject of the Mona Lisa.
Plus you have iconoclastism. It is specifically forbidden in the Bible to make images of GOD, it was just done anyway after a war over that.
The Bible is the best selling book of all time. I'm certain that Jesus is more popular than Einstein. Not that care, but your post is not factual.
I tell you what - it's the face of the most advertised person. Currency is not used for advertising.
So out of three, it's easiest to recollect Lincoln with stove top with US flag and pointing finger. Her majesty comes second because all the memes of her longevity.
The most recognisable? Certain Hollywood actors. Period.
I would guess the “Mona Lisa”. Or maybe actors in popular films like Robert Downey Jr.
How are those gonna do inside that surprisingly-small circle you can draw over Asia and Oceania that contains half the world's population? How about all of Africa?
Whichever face it is, it's probably recognizable to both Indians and Chinese people.
I wouldn't be surprised the winner's a well-known bodhisattva. Though that opens up the question of whether it has to be a photo, and if not, the Lisa Gherardini might be a real contender (though possibly disqualified, since that identification isn't 100% certain).
Maybe I've read too many articles about US currency being used across the world. That said, I've seen a surprising amount of foreign programs reference Lincoln's image. Considering there are hundreds of billions of pennies in existence I suspect he's more well known than you'd think, even though they primarily are in the US.
EDIT: I'm having difficulty working with HN, especially puncuation modifications, it's tricky to copy paste into eg https://geraintluff.github.io/sha256/
To get that oath, hash that message as ASCII, everything between the triple +'s, "+++". Keep those out. You must get
0002a29ee3e809d4dcf5adc2bc1fc7ed61a10a01efc37eb2207bdad9193b1ebf
But copy the string into the console, not in the entry. This is currently not an easy process.
:)