From: jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk,alt.sex,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Photo of minor, etc./Virtual Ethics
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:45:29 GMT
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University

From article <1992Apr9.213305.26714@icmv>, by degroff@tricorder.IntelliCorp.COM (Les Degroff):
> In article <1992Apr5.164737.16759@yang.earlham.edu>, allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
> |> In article <1992Apr2.031058.19303@reed.edu>, mehawk@reed.edu (Michael Sandy) writes:
> |> > 
> |> > How would you react to someone using a simulation of you in their
> |> > Virtual fantasy?  What if they did various non-consensual type stuff
> |> > with that copy?
> |> > 
> |> > And no royalties! ;^)
> |> > 
> |> 	That's an interesting point. Should people have copyrights over 
> |> their appearance, etc? I'd say yes. Just as someone shouldn't be able to 
> |> find out/use my grades, etc. without my permission, they shouldn't be able 
> |> to use my appearance without my permission. Of course, at some point this 
> |> runs into freedom of the press- being able to print a photo of someone.
> |> 	-Allen
> 
> Better think about a couple limit cases... there are naturally people
> that look enough alike to be taken for each others  and in simulation
> you are going to have reduced appearance to parameters and data.
> (for those interested in technical aspects, several years ago a
> researcher at HP (sorry I forget her name) did a careful study showing
> how a set of less than 25 measurements of a human face both allowed
> full recognition reconstruction from a "base sterotype" image and
> that by selecting the parameters with high deviation from the
> "base" one could computerize the generation of caricatures...same
> principles that police artists work with)  IT that context it
> becomes a quick cop out to say...it's not a simulation of XXX, just
> observe the parameters...Not a Marlyn Monroe, we have added a quarter
> inch in height,  caricatured the fact by 2% and the simulations waist is
> smaller.... 
>   Its a bunch of bullshit to have copyright over appearance, even more so
> over parametrized images....maybe I better dig out the paper, push it 
> a little bit further into body parameters, create a generate program and
> copyright a nice wide set! :) (As I post this, I wonder...should I
> do this...could I gain and/or prevent some other jerks from gaining...:))
> Add a wrinkle, a birthmark, a little scar???

There was a movie about this quite a while ago.  I believe it was
"Looker", at least the title song by Kim Carnes had that title.
The premise was that an ad agency had figured out how to find the
"perfect" model for a given ad.  When they had her/him, they
would murder the original so no one else could use them and the
agency wouldn't have to pay them residuals (at least, that's the
way I remember it).  It seems to me that we are very close to
having the technology to do this (the "simulation", not the
murders - Og the caveman could handle that ;-{)  ).

From the point of view of the director, I think it has really
neat potential.  You could have new Bogart, Monroe, Fonda
(elder), etc. movies, and might not have to pay the actors
anything.  Should be an interesting legal case.

From the point of view of actors, I find it chilling.  After you
have become famous, someone could use your image for...anything.
You might not become famous because of all the famous actors who
never age (or can be shown at any age).
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas More)