
Who Owns Your Face? - pmcpinto
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/who-owns-your-face/520731/?single_page=true
======
mirimir
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](https://www.quora.com/Can-you-copyright-your-own-face)

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

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

~~~
dspillett
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...

------
jMyles
This is the kind of headline (and analysis) that drives me a little crazy. It
brings, in my opinion, completely corrupted versions of the two key words:
"Owns" and "Face."

Despite the article's scary posturing about the matters of intellectual
property that arise from all humans having a face, it fails to remember this
basic concrete fact:

My face is a physical object - bone structure, musculature, skin, and the like
- that is attached to me. And I unambiguously own it. Anybody who literally
tries to steal it will be met with the wrath of actual facial self-defense.

On the other hand, once _photons have bounced off this physical structure and
made their way into a CMOS sensor_ it turns out that I don't own the content
of the storage media contained by the devices doing the capturing.

Then, when someone take this same media and publishes it online, its
ownership, in an organic sense, becomes wholly unclear. The only reason
_anybody_ can "own" a piece of media on the internet is because the state, via
(often capricious) enforcement of intellectual property laws, says so.

In a more concrete sense, it seems quite clear that anybody can own and use
any piece of media on the internet for any purpose; they just need to be
informed that, for the moment, the state may exact violence upon - you guessed
it - their face and other body parts - for doing so.

In fact, a much better case to use for analysis of the literal question of
"Who Owns Your Face?" are laws banning gas masks, such as the emergency order
at the WTO protests in Seattle in 2000. The implication of such an order,
obviously, is that the state owns your face, and may use your mucus membranes
as an attack surface for irritant chemicals to control you, and that you don't
own your face in sufficient measure to take preventative action.

What I'm saying is: a crucial piece of thinking critically about civic virtue
and property in the information age is to distinguish _a thing_ from _a
representation of that thing_. The former can clearly be owned and its owner
is usually obvious. The latter probably cannot, and states who fail to
recognize this will increasingly fall behind.

~~~
qntty
I don't think that people having this conversation fail to make the
distinction that you're making. They talk like that because language is
metaphorical. In fact, if you pay attention, you'll notice that you do the
same sort of thing all the time.

Speaking about it differently will frame the concepts differently, but the way
that people frame a concept is an intentional choice (it's not an error
because there's no right way to do it). You can disagree about the way to
frame the debate (that is, the way to think about the concepts), but
understanding the physics of light sensors doesn't automatically lead to
framing this particular conversation differently. There are lots of valid ways
of thinking about the issue that doesn't rely on understanding physics.

------
Mendenhall
Could anyone help me with this question. If I take a picture of "famous
person" in public I can put it on a cover of a book and sell it correct? (USA)

Now if I take that same picture and slap it on a boxcover for "shampoo" that I
sell, I assume "famous person" could legally get me to remove the image. What
"law" would they be using to get me to remove it?

~~~
narrowrail
I had to look it up, and it varies by country (obviously), but assuming you
are in the US:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#United_Stat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#United_States)

~~~
Mendenhall
Thank you for taking the time, I appreciate it!

------
jankotek
In future many people will cover their faces on public. With cameras, face
recognition and personalized ads on every corner; that is the only adblock.

~~~
darpa_escapee
Wearing a mask to conceal your identity in public is a crime in most places
and also a felony in some. [1]

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
mask_laws#United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
mask_laws#United_States)

~~~
_petronius
It's also possible to defeat some facial recognition algorithms without
concealing your face from other humans:
[https://cvdazzle.com/](https://cvdazzle.com/)

I, for one, welcome the oncoming privacy-enhancing cyberpunk fashion.

------
anotheryou
Can a model (maybe with face surgery) patent her face? With ever tightening
copyright laws this could get interesting.

------
notspanishflu
Almost Human - SPOILER

Maybe we'll all need a face changer like that used in Almost Human, season 1,
episode 3.

------
transfire
Buddha face.

