1172
this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
1172 points (94.5% liked)
Technology
59168 readers
2133 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Obviously there is a difference. However, I am very aware that if something can be monetized, someone will try to monetize and monopolize it. A few years ago, and possibly still today, the word Saga was trademarked. Disney has attempted to trademark common phrases and such in some cultures. Sony has made attempts. I'm certain Apple has tried. The Pokemon Company. Nintendo. A tiny Youtube creator uses their own music and one chord sounds vaguely like some song and they get demolished.
Don't think for a second that companies haven't sat in meetings and gone, "Do we think we can trademark the sound of a voice? Can we OWN that likeness?" These fuckers would privatize air if they thought they could get away with it. Sound pissed all you want, the reality is we've very likely dodged this bullet once or twice already, so we should be aware.
The problem is that as far as I'm aware there's literally zero evidence of this doomsday scenario you're describing ever happening, despite publicity rights being a thing for over 50 years. Companies have zero interest in monetizing publicity rights to this extent because of the near-certain public backlash, and even if they did, courts have zero interest in enforcing publicity rights against random individuals to avoid inviting a flood of frivolous lawsuits. They're almost exclusively used by individuals to defend against businesses using their likeness without permission.
Okay, fair enough. I did say worst case, though how you explain it makes sense. I don't trust that they won't try eventually, you're probably right that they won't do so without outcry. I appreciate the down to earth reaction and explanation!