Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI Your Rights Online

Bruce Willis Denies Selling Rights To His Face (bbc.com) 34

Posted by BeauHD from the denied-reports dept.
Last week, a number of outlets reported that Bruce Willis sold his face to a deepfake company called Deepcake, allowing a "digital twin" of himself to be created for use on screen. The only problem is that it's apparently not true. According to the BBC, the actor's agent said that he had "no partnership or agreement" with the company and a representative of Deepcake said only Willis had the rights to his face From the report: On 27 September, the Daily Mail reported that a deal had been struck between Willis and Deepcake. "Two-time Emmy winner Bruce Willis can still appear in movies after selling his image rights to Deepcake," the story reads. The story was picked up by the Telegraph and a series of other media outlets. "Bruce Willis has become the first Hollywood star to sell his rights to allow a 'digital twin' of himself to be created for use on screen." said the Telegraph. But that doesn't appear to be the case.

What is true is that a deepfake of Bruce Willis was used to create an advert for Megafon, a Russian telecoms company, last year. The tech used in the advert was created by Deepcake, which describes itself as an AI company specializing in deepfakes. Deepcake told the BBC it had worked closely with Willis' team on the advert. "What he definitely did is that he gave us his consent (and a lot of materials) to make his Digital Twin," they said. The company says it has a unique library of high-resolution celebrities, influencers and historical figures. On its website, Deepcake promotes its work with an apparent quote from Mr Willis: "I liked the precision of my character. It's a great opportunity for me to go back in time. "The neural network was trained on content of Die Hard and Fifth Element, so my character is similar to the images of that time." A representative from Deepcake said in a statement: "The wording about rights is wrong... Bruce couldn't sell anyone any rights, they are his by default."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bruce Willis Denies Selling Rights To His Face More

Bruce Willis Denies Selling Rights To His Face

Comments Filter:

  • What if an actor did sell rights to his likeness and voice, but retained the option to keep acting? Could he compete with his avatar for a role?

    And if non-exclusive licenses were sold, could an actor compete with multiple avatars?

    If the film needs two actors who play identical twins, could the production company force the actor to charge less (since he'll only be in the one role)?

    • What if an actor did sell rights to his likeness and voice, but retained the option to keep acting? Could he compete with his avatar for a role?

      No decent lawyer would leave out a clause preventing the avatar from competing with the actor.

      • No decent lawyer would leave out a clause preventing the avatar from competing with the actor.

        How would they know?

        If a casting director considered an actor for a role, but decided to use a cheaper avatar instead, and never contacted the real actor, then the actor lost the role without anyone but the director knowing.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          If a casting director considered an actor for a role, but decided to use a cheaper avatar instead, and never contacted the real actor, then the actor lost the role without anyone but the director knowing.

          Well, I'd be surprised if Bruce Willis wasn't a SAG member. SAG has the Crispin Glover rule, instituted because of well, Crispin Glover in Back to the Future Part 2. You might remember the scene in BTTF2 where Marty's dad was floating upside down in the house? That's basically why.

          Marty's dad was played by

        • No decent lawyer would leave out a clause preventing the avatar from competing with the actor.

          How would they know?

          If a casting director considered an actor for a role, but decided to use a cheaper avatar instead, and never contacted the real actor, then the actor lost the role without anyone but the director knowing.

          They'd know when the casting director approached them to negotiate a price for use of the avatar.

    • If the film needs two actors who play identical twins

      With modern digital editing, one actor can play identical twins.

      Armand Hammer played the Winklevoss twins in "The Social Network."

      Lindsay Lohan played a pair of twins in "The Parent Trap."

  • They can buy the rights to my face instead.

  • Really?

    The only good thing of that rag are the comics.

  • If I was buying faces I'd probably choose someone else. Assuming I had the money to buy a face, and the tech to use it. But I'd have other options, such as bodies.

    So I could take (think of your favorite face) and add (think of your favorite torso) and then (think of your favorite legs) -- and PROFIT! Can you also buy hair?

  • TL;DR if Bruce had rights to his face he COULD sell them. But he doesn't. And he can't. Deepcake, however does have some rights. Full comment follows.
    Ehud, Tucson AZ US

    1. Copyright.gov clearly lists the items that can be granted that right. "Your face" is not there.
    2. Intellectual Property is defined as 7 things which include copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and three more obscure things. None of them include our face.
    3. Bruce Willis did not create his face, and hence it is not a "creat

    • TL;DR if Bruce had rights to his face he COULD sell them. But he doesn't. And he can't. Deepcake, however does have some rights. Full comment follows.
      Ehud, Tucson AZ US

      1. Copyright.gov clearly lists the items that can be granted that right. "Your face" is not there.
      2. Intellectual Property is defined as 7 things which include copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and three more obscure things. None of them include our face.
      3. Bruce Willis did not create his face, and hence it is not a "creation" of his, nor "his by default" (whatever that means).
      4. Deepcak, however, DID create a deepfake of Bruce Willis, and they DO own the rights to that.
      5. The AI is a tool, not a human, and doesn't get creator rights. See e.g. Naruto and his non-friends at PETA.
      6. If Bruce took a selfie he'd own the rights to that picture.
      7. If the instant he put the camera down a photog (paparazzo?) picked it up and took the same shot, the paparazzo would the copyright on this second picture. Even if we couldn't distinguish Bruce's selfie (Shot 1) from the paparazzo (Shot 2) and that it was taken with the same camera, under US law and many others, the copyright belongs to the human who took that shot.

      I'm not a lawyer, and don't play one on the Internet, but it seemed to be slow-pitch short-bus night on Slashdot (thanks, BeauHd!) so there ya go.

      Bruce Willis created his own image and public persona and he likely has a registered trademark covering that [ferencelaw.com]. If you tried to release a feature film using surreptitiously taken film of Bruce Willis you'd get sued to oblivion. Hell, if you as a non-public person end up in a TV show or movie without your consent you can sue, hence why they always get signed waivers.

      Now, for journalism I think the rules start changing, which is why the paparazzi don't need consent.

      But I'd be shocked if you could deepfake a mov

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by gavron ( 1300111 )

        I'll try and explain better. Bruce Willis never has nor ever will have a copyright on his face.

        > Bruce Willis created his own image and public persona and he likely has a registered trademark covering that [ferencelaw.com].

        That's not a copyright case, that's a trademark case, and he would have had to show confusion in the marketplace as a result of the [mis]use of the plaintiff's registered mark. He didn't. He lost.

        Ice Cube had his ass handed to him by the court in 2021. Take your pick from any number

    • There is something called the right of publicity. In the US, this is handled primarily at the state level (and quite differently, and under various names, in different states). There are some situations where there is Federal protection also.

      Some details from Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute [cornell.edu]:

      "The right of publicity prevents the unauthorized commercial use of an individual's name, likeness, or other recognizable aspects of one's persona. It gives an individual the exclusive right to lice

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by gavron ( 1300111 )

        And there's the difference between my right of privacy in my house, away from public view,
        and an A-List movie star out in public offering free photographic and audio samples

        The Courts said no to Ice Cube. The same would likely apply to Hudson Hawke.

    • You can trademark your likeness as well as your name. This protects usage for commercial purposes. Non-commercial usage of Bruce Willis' likeness is almost certainly permitted. Want to make a fanfic film of Bruce blowing a bunch of dudes, as long as you share it with your degenerate friends non-commercially you should be in the clear.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by gavron ( 1300111 )

        You can trademark your likeness as well as your name. This protects usage for commercial purposes. Non-commercial usage of Bruce Willis' likeness is almost certainly permitted. Want to make a fanfic film of Bruce blowing a bunch of dudes, as long as you share it with your degenerate friends non-commercially you should be in the clear.

        Imagine if any of that were true. It's not though. Feel free to cite the section of law that says anything like that. Take all the time you need.

      • You are substantially off your nut.

        What you "own" is the rights to your likeness. No one can use your likeness for commercial gain without your permission.

        Your "likeness" includes your appearance, but it also includes your voice, or really any attempt to purport to be you. If you had a well-known knee or elbow (maybe you've got a distinctive tattoo) and someone made an ad featuring it in an attempt to invoke your identity for the purpose of selling a product, that would also be a violation of your rights.

        Yo

        • You're off your rocker. Carmen Electra famously lost that case (Electra v. 59 Murray Enters., Inc [casetext.com]) after multiple appeals [msn.com]. You don't really have an automatic right to your own likeness, even if you're a celebrity, and even if you had a trademark. What matters is if your trademark protects a specific commercial purpose. If you're just a regular joe that hasn't filed a trademark, then you don't really have much recourse if someone uses your likeness. (at least in the US) vbx

  • Would a wealthy person be able to buy the right to "be" Bruce Willis. Exclusively even. The whole nine yards from the body sculpture and vocal cords down to implanted routines that enabled them to convincingly act like Bruce Willis.

    What would the rights to be William Shatner go for?

    Would a real estate tycoon, selling land on Ganymede, think it worth a hundred million dollars to be Donald Trump?

    I can easily imagine an older actor not minding selling such rights. Say Roger Moore for example, or James Earl Jon

  • How do we know that the Bruce Willis denying it is the real Bruce Willis and not a deep fake? Maybe the duly authorised deep fake denied it to cover its tracks?

  • Than a football game having Messi or Neymar in it. Or a video game with a character that looks exactly like Liam Neeson or Gary Oldman, and is voiced by them (slightly different, because in that case the deepfake is meant to represent Bruce Willis himself rather than a character played by him, but not all that different). Just more realistic looking. So not that big of a deal.

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close