The point is, to enforce such a copyright, there needs to be a database of likenesses and their owners.
In practice, this is only going to be relevant for very few people, mainly famous personalities, their heirs, or whoever owns their likeness. However, if you wanted to enforce this for the entire population, the database would have to be under very close watch by the government, at least similar to a commercial bank if not outright a government entity. That’s necessitated by data protection rights in Europe.
No it doesn’t. It would work like Copyright currently works.
I don’t need my works to be in any database for them to be protected by copyright. I simply have to declare their license or have the license be assumed by not declaring it. That’s how it already works.
You, the owner of the copyrighted works, has to sue the infringer. It’s not an automated process. Your ‘likeness’ doesn’t need to be in any database if you can prove they used your likeness. Content ID was an attempt by Google to automate the removal process on their platforms so they could wash their hands of the problem.
Yes, exactly. Content ID is a major part of how copyright currently works. The content industry convinced US courts that merely reacting to take-down notices was not enough. Companies hosting user generated content need to proactively search for infringing content.
In the EU, written law goes somewhat further. In both the US and EU, this explicitly does not require a lawsuit. It is an automated process for most practical purposes.
I can’t predict how Danish courts will see this. There are currently cases ongoing at the EU level that will make things clearer in that respect.
Content ID is a major part of how copyright currently works.
It’s literally not a part of how Copyright currently works. It’s how Google automated copyright claims on their platforms.
None of my creative works are in Content ID. People are not being sued through Content ID. Content ID flags stuff and at worst removes it. It is up to the copyright holder to decide what they want to do.
YouTube and similar platforms are major content distributors. Content owners would not be able to enforce their rights without automated surveillance, whether through Content ID or another system. Meanwhile, it is generally not economical for small creators, influencers, to litigate erroneous detections. So in many cases, Content ID is the ultimate arbiter of copyright.
When the likes of Taylor Swift or Donald Trump want to collect their licensing fees, they will use an automated system. And if some hapless citizen feels harassed by fakes and wants to make them harder to find, that will what be their only choice.
The point is, to enforce such a copyright, there needs to be a database of likenesses and their owners.
In practice, this is only going to be relevant for very few people, mainly famous personalities, their heirs, or whoever owns their likeness. However, if you wanted to enforce this for the entire population, the database would have to be under very close watch by the government, at least similar to a commercial bank if not outright a government entity. That’s necessitated by data protection rights in Europe.
No it doesn’t. It would work like Copyright currently works.
I don’t need my works to be in any database for them to be protected by copyright. I simply have to declare their license or have the license be assumed by not declaring it. That’s how it already works. You, the owner of the copyrighted works, has to sue the infringer. It’s not an automated process. Your ‘likeness’ doesn’t need to be in any database if you can prove they used your likeness. Content ID was an attempt by Google to automate the removal process on their platforms so they could wash their hands of the problem.
Yes, exactly. Content ID is a major part of how copyright currently works. The content industry convinced US courts that merely reacting to take-down notices was not enough. Companies hosting user generated content need to proactively search for infringing content.
In the EU, written law goes somewhat further. In both the US and EU, this explicitly does not require a lawsuit. It is an automated process for most practical purposes.
I can’t predict how Danish courts will see this. There are currently cases ongoing at the EU level that will make things clearer in that respect.
It’s literally not a part of how Copyright currently works. It’s how Google automated copyright claims on their platforms.
None of my creative works are in Content ID. People are not being sued through Content ID. Content ID flags stuff and at worst removes it. It is up to the copyright holder to decide what they want to do.
YouTube and similar platforms are major content distributors. Content owners would not be able to enforce their rights without automated surveillance, whether through Content ID or another system. Meanwhile, it is generally not economical for small creators, influencers, to litigate erroneous detections. So in many cases, Content ID is the ultimate arbiter of copyright.
When the likes of Taylor Swift or Donald Trump want to collect their licensing fees, they will use an automated system. And if some hapless citizen feels harassed by fakes and wants to make them harder to find, that will what be their only choice.