• Eccitaze@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    Holy fuck how do you not see the difference between “random nobody does an impression for free while hanging out with their pals” and “multi billion startup backed and funded by one of the richest companies on earth uses an impression as a key selling point for their new flagship product that they are charging access for and intend to profit from”

    • Xanis@lemmy.worldB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Eccitaze@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Xanis@lemmy.worldB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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!