You may not know the word for it, but you, like many people, probably saw the recently doctored video of U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The “deepfake” made it look like she was slurring her words, perhaps implying that she was under the influence of alcohol. The Washington Post reported that it appeared the manipulator slowed down the original video and modified the pitch of the Speaker’s voice.
News and Notes Focused on the 3 Public Faces of IP Law
- Brand Image Protection - Trademark Law
- Visual Image Protection - Copyright Law
- Personal Image Protection - Right of Publicity Law
The Image Protection Law blog has been created in order to share stories and information on the legal aspects of: 1) the marketplace reputation of a company or product captured in its trademark, 2) published or publicly-displayed artwork, photography, and any created visual design, and 3) use of a person's photograph or likeness for product promotion or other commercial purposes.
The "IP3" share at least one thing in common: Image is everything. In these posts let's look at what that means in the realm of intellectual property in the news, but let's also be prepared to explore if there's something more beyond "everything." Don't forget, the intellectual in "intellectual property" doesn't mean smart or brainy, although by nature true creators often are. The word is used to refer to any creation, i.e., a "product of the mind." While this blog will be regularly updated, you are encouraged to share your thoughts on these posts.
Although you may never have realized it, your personal identity is protected by law. This means that companies are not allowed to use your name, your photo, your voice, your signature or other personal aspects in their advertising without your permission. Your identifying features belong to you alone.
Personal Image Protection: A veteran of the Iraq War filed a right of publicity complaint against the producers of the award-winning film "The Hurt Locker based on the portrayal of his character as the IED disposal expert. Put simply, the issue was whether the portrayal of Sarver was merely a commercial use of his persona or whether it was protected First Amendment expression.