Copyright for voice and faces actually makes sense. Copyright for creative works as it exists is dumb as fuck.
Copyright is nothing more than a system for creating artificial scarcity and monopolies where there is no inherent need for it. Protecting our identities is a genuinely valuable use of that system, stopping artists from sampling and remixing is not.
Applies for a copyright patent for your face.
Gets it, now proceeds to sue you for violating my patent.
The core of the idea is that you own the copyright to your own face.
I don’t think anyone is proposing any kind of system that would allow you to hold the copyright of anyone else’s face.
Also, copyright != patent.
Oh no, twas a joke.
Although I didn’t know that copyright and patent were not the same.
I know it was meant as a joke, but unfortunately, yes, its kind of based on false premises.
Very, very broadly speaking:
A patent typically pertains to some kind of invention, some kind of unique and novel design of a machine or process.
A copyright typically pertains to some kind of created work, like a song, book, visual artwork.
A trademark typically pertains to a brand name, marketing slogan.
All 3 of these together comprise the category of Intellectual Property, IP Law.
https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/difference-copyright-patent-trademark/
The actual law on all this stuff is actually extremely esoteric and complicated… and it is probably also worth noting that I am describing and more well versed in US IP law, not that of the Netherlands, which may be substantially different … I am not Dutch, I don’t know much specifically on that, but I did study US IP law back during getting my Poli Sci and Econ degrees.
Again, the entire subject is… exceptionally tedious and complicated lol, I totally do not blame you for not knowing the details, the vast majority of people don’t, lol.
Hmm, interesting.
