zlacker

>Is there a distinction?

Yes, that would be a copyright violation on top of everything else.

Great idea though!

I'm going to start selling Keanu Reeves T-Shirts using this little trick.

See, I'm not using Keanu's likeness if I don't label it as Keanu. I'm just going to write Neo in a Tweet, and then say I'm just cloning Neo's likeness.

Neo is not a real person, so Keanu can't sue me! Bwahahaha

>>romwel+(OP)
If you find a guy that looks identical to him, however ...

>>romwel+(OP)
I love these takes that constantly pop up in tech circles.

There's no way "you" (the people that engage in these tactics) believe anyone is that gullible to not see what's happening. You either believe yourselves to be exceedingly clever or everyone else has the intelligence of toddler.

With the gumption some tech "leaders" display, maybe both.

If you have to say "technically it's not" 5x in a row to justify a position in a social context just short-circuit your brain and go do something else.

>>morale+24
>If you find a guy that looks identical to him, however ...

...it wouldn't make any difference.

A Barack Obama figurine is a Barack Obama figurine, no matter how much you say that it's actually a figurine of Boback O'Rama, a random person that coincidentally looks identically to the former US President.

>>romwel+(OP)
Nitpick: it's not copyright, it's personality rights and likeness. It's a violation of it nonetheless.

>>romwel+hR
What?

That situation would be completely legal. Come on.

>>morale+Tp1
>What?

California Civil Code Section 3344(a) states:

Any person who knowingly uses another’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person’s prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.

>>whokno+25
Just to be clear, my comment was sarcastic, I agree with you and I don't think it's a great idea at all.

Writing this comment mostly to say - damn, I didn't think about it this way, but I guess "either believe yourselves to be exceedingly clever or everyone else has the intelligence of toddler" is indeed the mindset.

The only other alternative I can think of is "we all know it's BS, but do they have more money than us to spend on lawyers to call it out?" - which isn't much better TBH.

>>romwel+uE2
What are you supposed to do if you look like a famous celebrity? Die? Get real.

>>morale+zK3
>What are you supposed to do if you look like a famous celebrity?

Not make a living posing for pictures without consent of the said celebrity?

Re: "get real" - the law is pretty real.

>>romwel+8d4
Sure, but you're not. You're just a look-alike and Boback O'Rama is not somebody with personality rights.

Things like parody are protected under fair use, explicitly.