this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2026
542 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

84302 readers
7576 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WagnasT@piefed.world 160 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (8 children)

I feel like your likeness should be protected by default, is it not?

To be clear, not under copy protection but is there some other protection from impersonation such as fraud?

[–] piwakawakas@lemmy.nz 68 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Denmark has created a new law for exactly this reason. You are entitled to your own likeness. I'm unaware of other countries, but I remember reading about the Denmark one

[–] Ibuthyr@lemmy.wtf 2 points 22 hours ago

Germany has the "Recht am eigenen Bild", which is why street photography sucks balls here. But it's a good law. Not sure if this covers "AI" related shit.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 25 points 5 days ago (4 children)

In the US there is a "right of publicity" that is based on state law, typically for commercial uses. There are also some laws depending on locality criminalizing deepfakes for revenge porn. Some countries use copyright law to the same end.

The "doppelganger problem" is really why this is not an easy issue to answer. If someone gets exclusive rights to a specific face, who is to say another person naturally having a similar face isn't being wronged? How close is too close? What about similar names? And should that really be protected after death (which copyright and trademark and some publicity laws allow)?

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 8 points 5 days ago (2 children)

You can be as close as you want, as long as you don't exploit it or cause confusion. For example, Apple Computer and Apple Records coexisted for decades because they operated in separate industries. It only became a problem when Apple Computer started Apple Music.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 days ago
[–] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 8 points 5 days ago

Yes, but my understanding is that the bar to clear for a successful suit is a lot lower for trademark violation vs 'unauthorized use of likeness' or similar.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] SethTaylor@lemmy.world 87 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (4 children)

If someone used my face and voice to make money without so much as asking me I'd be pissed off too.

In 2023, Scarlett Johansson’s attorney demanded that an AI app stop using her likeness in an advertisement. The actor also called out OpenAI in 2024 for using an “eerily similar” voice to hers for their GPT-4o chatbot despite having declined the company’s request to provide her voice. OpenAI subsequently announced it would no longer be using the voice, but did not indicate why.

In 2024, Tom Hanks called out the “multiple ads over the internet falsely using my name, likeness, and voice promoting miracle cures and wonder drugs.”

Look at this shit. This is illegal as fuck. Imagine being a doctor and some RFK-type podcaster uses your name, face and voice to promote some hack cure and destroys your reputation.

And they ASKED Johansson and she said no and they still did it. Fuckin AI motherfuckers. No shame

[–] Gonzako@lemmy.world 37 points 5 days ago

Rape culture type shit

Implying Sam Altman has shame is a hilarious concept.

[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 14 points 5 days ago

The amount of money these companies have is disproportionate to the amount of punishment they receive when they break a law. People look at the victim and think why should she get billions (which would be a truly proportional punishment) just for them using a voice that sounds like hers. Okay fine. Then give her a commensurate amount and put the rest into a legal defense fund to help others who were harmed. But either way, the company should be proportionately punished to deter them or others from doing same again.

[–] Zizzy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That doctor thing has already happened. I saw a recent one thats basically exactly what youre describing but i cant recall his name to find it again

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 49 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Her voice is not really unique in anyway nor are her looks. While she may not use this as a cudgel against anyone who looks like or sounds like her other artists will.

While I am not opposed to protections for all people, I am opposed to just the wealthy getting this privilege through trademark.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 22 points 5 days ago (1 children)

We’ve already seen dead actors being brought back through AI usage, I think Val Kilmer was one of them. She might not have the most unique looks but even I can recognize her; someone stealing her likeness to make sales is very possible and would have huge repercussions, especially with how culty her base can be.

Ultimately it should be thoroughly illegal if someone hasn’t opted into it and the legal battle should be telling the people who used the likeness should be told to go fuck themselves.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago

There is a lot going on here to be honest and you brought some additional complexity into it by bringing up a dead person.

First, she doesn't need trademark to sue companies for using unauthorized statements or pictures/video of her even if it is AI generated. This is called the right of publicity.

California has a law on the books that addresses your concerns around death and it is a better solution than trying to shoehorn trademark into this problem. I don't necessarily agree with posthumous protection myself, but it is a better way to accomplish a goal.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

Taylor Swift in particular has had thousands of pornographic pictures generated of her, which is fucked up.

[–] BigMacHole@thelemmy.club 98 points 5 days ago

It's a GOOD THING AI companies RESPECT Trademarks and Copyrights!

[–] GreenBeanMachine@lemmy.world 41 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (34 children)

Fuck all billionaires. Fuck Taylor. Fuck AI.

[–] MIDItheKID@lemmy.world 29 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah this is one of those ones like:

She's not wrong, but also, she can get bent.

It does however set a precedent for other celebrities and people going forward so I'm kinda with her on this one. If there's one person who can make a stink about this and have it matter, it's probably her.

It would have been better if it was one of the likeable celebrities. Like Keanu Reeves.

But I guess you take what you can get.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

It does however set a precedent for other celebrities and people going forward

The precedent is "you need to jump through a series of legal hoops and build up a legal army in order to secure what was already supposed to be yours to begin with".

It would have been better if it was one of the likeable celebrities. Like Keanu Reeves.

It wouldn't matter, because we're talking about an entrenched legal precedent not a likeability contest.

In some sense, it begins to feel like all that sovereign citizenship bullshit. People being fed this narrative that you have to perform an elaborate, esoteric legal dance in order to have your humanity recognized by the state bureaucracy. It creates the (false) impression that there's One Neat Trick to having your civil rights acknowledged and respected, and you just need to be savvy enough to speak the magic words and perform the ritual dance. In truth, you're in a boxing match with a gorilla.

load more comments (33 replies)
[–] Zacryon@feddit.org 18 points 4 days ago

Welcome to capitalism. You need to trademark yourself in order to get a basic minimum of protection on your image.

[–] SeaDawg@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago

Seen somewhere around here

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 21 points 5 days ago

I don't blame her, they are going to be forced to do this to protect themselves from the AI maniacs, who think they have the right to AI everything, whether you like it or not.

The YouTube music world is being ferociously attacked from all angles by AI. One YouTuber has a unique voice and style, and had posted numerous videos. An AI company used her voice to train their AI voice, copyrighted it, and now they are sueing HER for infringement, and YouTube has taken down all her videos. They literally stole her voice.

AI is a bad enough threat, but the people managing this technology are about the most psychopathic people who have ever been in business.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 18 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Fuck all of these artists keeping ticketmaster alive.

[–] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

I think that hatred is better projected at all the venues signing exclusivity deals with Ticketmaster so that other companies can't compete and the politicians allowing the monopoly. Taylor Swift was actually partnered with a competitor to Ticketmaster, AEG, but AEG couldn't sell the tickets due to the mentioned exclusivity deals and had to post them through Ticketmaster.

Or are you saying all artists should stop touring? Because that would kill off so many of them as they can't afford to live off streaming and record sales due to corporate fat cats keeping too much at the record labels

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jobbies@lemmy.zip 24 points 5 days ago (5 children)

Using copyright to prevent pirating, what a novel idea! I am shaking in my boots! No pirating for me!!

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

More in line of protecting against synthetic copy cats than piracy but k

[–] lordnikon@lemmy.world 18 points 5 days ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] bhamlin@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

So, we're gonna need exact data to make sure we don't accidentally duplicate any of that trademarked body. 😐😐😐

[–] Sims@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 days ago

That was the nicest way of saying "show your tits !"

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 15 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Let the billionaires fight eachother. And be all asshurt over it. People should start making AI Slop Taylor Swift songs and watch the Streisand effect follow.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] anugeshtu@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago

So... now potential clones in the future never get a chance to be successful?

I don't want to live in this universe anymore.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 5 days ago

Too late I already patented it.

/j

[–] MutantTailThing@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago

I read files as flies and it also made perfect sense to me.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago

Her real voice, or the auto-tuned one?

[–] artyom@piefed.social 6 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

So now if someone posts photos or videos of TS on Instagram she can sue IG? Or what?

The global pop superstar on Friday filed trademark applications for two audio clips of her voice

So it only applies to those 2 audio clips?

This is terrible reporting.

load more comments
view more: next ›