Daft Idea Of The Week: Giving People Copyright In Their Faces

from the real-facepalm dept

Copyright maximalism has proceeded along two axes. The first is the term of copyright, which has been steadily extended from the basic 14 years of the 1710 Statute of Anne to today's life + 50 or 70 years, depending on the jurisdiction. The other is the scope of copyright, where there are constant attempts to make yet more fields of human endeavor subject to it – for example fashion or food.

It's a sad sign of how pervasive this idea of granting a copyright monopoly on everything has become that all sorts of people are starting to offer suggestions - like this proposal from privacy groups to give people copyright in their faces:

The Federal Trade Commission recently held a workshop on facial recognition technology, such as Facebook’s much-hated system, and its privacy implications. The FTC has promised to come down hard on companies who abuse these capabilities, but privacy advocates are seeking even stronger protections. One proposal raised was to provide people with copyright in their faceprints or facial features. This idea has two demerits: it is unconstitutional, and it is insane. Otherwise, it seems fine.
The author of those words, Derek Bambauer, points out two Constitutional problems. First, that it's the author of a work that gets the copyright, and that would be the person who fixes your face as a photo, say. This would lead to the fun situation where somebody else would own the copyright to your face. The other issue is that you can't copyright facts, and your face, however expressive you might make it, is just a physical fact in its natural state.

Bambrauer also notes deep practical problems with the idea:

So, the proposal is unconstitutional. It’s also stupid: fixing privacy with copyright is like fixing alcoholism with heroin. Copyright infringement is ubiquitous in a world of digital networked computers. Similarly, if we get copyright in our facial features, every bystander who inadvertently snaps our picture with her iPhone becomes an infringer – subject to statutory damages of between $750 and $30,000. Even if few people sue, those who do have a powerful weapon on their side. Courts would inevitably try to mitigate the harsh effects of this regime, probably by finding most such incidents to be fair use. But that imposes high administrative costs, and fair use is an equitable doctrine – it invites courts to inject their normative views into the analysis.
Much the same could be said of existing copyright works in the online world. "Bystanders" of digital content – for example, people who record their children dancing to music - are regarded as infringers by the recording companies, even though their "use" is entirely a function of the ubiquity of material covered by copyright.

Fortunately, courts do indeed try to "mitigate the harsh effects of this regime" by declaring such things fair use - in some countries at least. But it's a pity that the stupidity of trying to enforce copyright for such incidental uses isn't as manifestly self-evident as it is for the idea of giving people copyright in their faces.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    crade (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 8:01am

    heh, can we sign our face copyrights over to the RIAA in exchange for tricks and false promises so they can use them as a pawn in their lawmaking games?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 8:28am

    Lets just copyright everyting.

    EVERYTHING! And let the copyright last life+infinity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      abc gum, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:17am

      Re: Lets just copyright everyting.

      In order to not become unconstitutional, one must include the "minus one day" clause.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ShellMG, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 8:35am

    "Copyright maximalism has proceeded along two axes."

    Wow...I don't think they're using those axes to get through red tape! ;-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 8:39am

    What could possibly be next? Copyright your pet dog or cat? Copyright your face first thing in the morning after "a night out with the boys"?

    Geeze. This could be fun! I could copyright the mess in my house!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 8:39am

    > This would lead to the fun situation where somebody else would own the copyright to your face.

    This is neither strange, unusual (or fun). It is not any kind of stretch in the law, either.

    Remember: your genes are already owned by various pharma companies who have patented major sections. Even your tissues and organs are probably not owned by you. This is settled case law. Having someone else (Disney?, Apple? etc...) own copyright to your face is less than even a tiny step away.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      abc gum, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:24am

      Re:

      "... tissues and organs are probably not owned by you ... "

      Soon they will figure out a way to charge you a licensing fee, then watch them fall like a rock.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 8:40am

    TMZ and The Enquirer would be the first to lobby against this as the paparazzi would be the first to get put out of business.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 10:30am

      Re:

      Forget paparazzi. Imagine the lengths news reporters would have to go to in order to not infringe. They'd have to edit every segment filmed in a public area with all faces blurred. You couldn't do any live on-the-scene reporting for fear of a lawsuit.

      Then again, cops who assault protesters would love this. First they beat you, then they take your livelihood in civil court because you took a picture of them beating you.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jesse (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 8:44am

    Cosmetic surgeons and maybe your parents have a better claim to faces than the people who merely own them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Machin Shin, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 8:45am

    What about plastic surgery

    So the interesting question would be what about copyright on a doctors work on someones face? You could argue that plastic surgery is an art and so then they could have copyright on their patients faces(as well as some other parts for that matter). I could see some interesting copyright cases coming out of this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:00am

      Re: What about plastic surgery

      I believe Cher's surgeon already holds copyright on her body... (seriously).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Machin Shin, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 10:45am

        Re: Re: What about plastic surgery

        I can see it now a woman gets dragged into court with someone suing her. Their claim?

        "I have a copyright on that but! You totally infringed on my copyright of big buts!"

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rex, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:01am

    Twins

    So, could twins legally sue each other? Would the loser have to forfeit his/her face?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:53am

      Re: Twins

      Along this same line of thought; aren't the odds of someone having the same exact DNA as you something like 1 in 25,000,000,000? So that would mean that there's a 28% chance that someone out there right now is already walking around with your face (minus scarring, broken bones or other after the fact alterations).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Zangetsu (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:15am

    The author of the work is ...

    ... your parents.

    As a parent I am glad to know that if any of my daughters get famous, have their face photographed thousands of times, I can just bring out the lawyers and sue everyone. This makes a great retirement fund for myself and my wife. Just think, it is no longer Lindsay Lohan who gets the money, but her parents! Michael Lohan can now stay at home and drink/party to his hearts content because the seed from his loins brought forth "The Lindsay".

    I think this is a wonderful excuse to have as many kids as possible with as many women as possible so as to ensure a valuable income in your twilight years.

    And, let's face it, if the Doctor does work on the face, he is creating a derivative work. (Hopefully not a parody.) I can still probably sue him if my income drops as a result of his work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jeremy Lyman (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:46am

      Re: The author of the work is ...

      I'm going to go around punching as many people in the nose as I can. Face copyright troll away!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 3:01pm

      Re: The author of the work is ...

      This is the same thing I was thinking. In many cases the parents would own the copyright on their children's faces, but not always. The creator of the creative work owns the copyright, so as long as your parents used a method other than the missionary position that should be enough to meet the "creative" standard. As for all the conception that resulted from boring sex, I think that's all public domain material... :P

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:36am

    Didn't I read something once...

    .. something about "the progress of science and useful arts"?

    Someone remind me - which one of those does my face fall into again?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jeremy Lyman (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:55am

      Re: Didn't I read something once...

      Lookit, people just aren't going to have any incentive to make babies any more if they don't get some type of ownership rights out of the deal. Do you want a population collapse on your hands?

      I'm still undecided on whether baby making falls into science or art, it probably depends on the situation and how drunk the scientists/artists are.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Noah C. (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:38am

    Hunter Moore would SO hate this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Noah C. (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:38am

    Hunter Moore would SO hate this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Professoriate, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 10:48am

    'in'

    I agree with the spirit of your argument here, but think you should be more precise in your language. It is the imprecision that makes this idea daft.

    Give people copyright 'in their faces' doesn't suggest an appropriate relationship between the face and the copyright.
    Alternatives include "copyright of their faces", "copyrights over their own faces" or "the copyright to their faces".

    There is no absolute right to one's own likeness, but there are already certain rights that apply to likenesses, to some extent and these are the reason for 'life rights' contracts and photo releases. The right to privacy also has some constitutional basis, and people snapping photos with phones anywhere where there is more than a reasonable expectation of privacy and no compelling public interest at stake may be violating that right, and justice would be served by charging them with something -- but not something copyright related. Privacy and intellectual property are two entirely different things and should remain legally and linguistically distinct.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Nina Paley (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 11:02am

    Without copyright...

    ...I'd have no incentive to have a face. We need this law, or there will be no more faces. Imagine a world without faces - is that what you want?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Nina Paley (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 11:04am

    Typo

    Whoops - I think this is all a misunderstanding. The suggestion was to give people copyright in their faeces. That makes sense - Hollywood does it already.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Josef Anvil (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 11:45am

    I have to infringe

    fixing privacy with copyright is like fixing alcoholism with heroin


    'nuff said

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 1:21am

    Hmmm copyright would then occur at the moment of inception..

    You could have joined copyright if you had twins, though there could be some problems with dilution if they were identical twins (or more).

    And if the parents suddenly bite the big IP in the sky, you would have real interesting problems with orphaned works.

    And if that 'work' decided to make other works.. could that be an infringement under SOPA.. would they be called rogue sex deviants?

    You would need licensing slips to use before any illicit/lude behaviour otherwise you would be classified as a major copyright pirate and all because you wanted some booty.. Arrrrrrrrrrr

    Oh the horror!


    PS: It's xmas Eve here in Australia and I would like to take this opportunity wish EVERYONE at Techdirt a happy, peaceful, wonderful and above all a safe Christmas and New Year. May your god(s) or otherwise be with you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 5:59am

    I have a simple solution

    If someone sues me for taking a picture of their face in public, which to me means any place other than their residences, then removing their face will prevent future copyright violations. Problem solved. (I'd use a fish fillet knife, thus preserving the underlying muscles and nerves, and then they could get a new face. Once they have someone else's face transplanted, they cannot validly claim copyright.).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    brain hardware, Dec 25th, 2011 @ 3:04am

    information

    This information is copyrighted and may not be copied to your brain.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This