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

from the real-facepalm dept

Fri, Dec 23rd 2011 8:18am — Glyn Moody

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+

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, faces, ftc, privacy

40 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

crade (profile), 23 Dec 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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 8:28am

Lets just copyright everyting.
EVERYTHING! And let the copyright last life+infinity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ShellMG, 23 Dec 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! ;-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 23 Dec 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!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jesse (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 8:44am

Cosmetic surgeons and maybe your parents have a better claim to faces than the people who merely own them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Machin Shin, 23 Dec 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
el_segfaulto (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 8:51am

Re:
:) That was my face. You've seen it, now pony up!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 8:55am

Re: Re:
I've got a crumpled up Euro somewhere around the house. Will that do if I can get it to you before the currency collapses? :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 8:57am

Re: Re:
Your face infringed on my well being, which I have copyrighted. You pony up!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 9:00am

Re: What about plastic surgery
I believe Cher's surgeon already holds copyright on her body... (seriously).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rex, 23 Dec 2011 @ 9:01am

Twins
So, could twins legally sue each other? Would the loser have to forfeit his/her face?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 9:14am

Re: Re: Re:
Big deal. A suitcase full of monopoly money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zangetsu (profile), 23 Dec 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 23 Dec 2011 @ 9:17am

Re: Lets just copyright everyting.
In order to not become unconstitutional, one must include the "minus one day" clause.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 23 Dec 2011 @ 9:20am

Re:
The axes of evil are being sharpened.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 23 Dec 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Noah C. (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 9:38am

Hunter Moore would SO hate this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Noah C. (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 9:38am

Hunter Moore would SO hate this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeremy Lyman (profile), 23 Dec 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!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 23 Dec 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).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeremy Lyman (profile), 23 Dec 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 23 Dec 2011 @ 9:58am

Re: Re: Didn't I read something once...
Do it for science !
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 10:10am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
And my axe!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 23 Dec 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Machin Shin, 23 Dec 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!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Professoriate, 23 Dec 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 10:57am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And my Vuvuzela!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nina Paley (profile), 23 Dec 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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nina Paley (profile), 23 Dec 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 11:05am

Re: Without copyright...
I don't know about that, could be very cool
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 11:45am

I have to infringe
fixing privacy with copyright is like fixing alcoholism with heroin

'nuff said
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 23 Dec 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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 4:19pm

Re: Re: Re: What about plastic surgery
But... but... piracy!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 24 Dec 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BearGriz72 (profile), 24 Dec 2011 @ 3:19am

Re: I have to infringe
"fixing privacy with copyright is like fixing alcoholism with heroin"

I vote this the one liner of the month BTW.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 24 Dec 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.).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
brain hardware, 25 Dec 2011 @ 3:04am

information
This information is copyrighted and may not be copied to your brain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]