The line is if the symbols/works are used in a context so they clearly intentionally, or by unnecessary/unreasonable lack of care, create confusion. Someone who looks and sounds like McConaughey just being themselves isn't a violation.
Look at existing trademarks. They are riddled with high similarity filings, but they co-exist as long as they are not used to create confusion.
The bar for any enforcement would be very high for humans, simply looking and behaving like themselves.
But if someone very much like McConaughey was used in a commercial portraying a fictional "famous actor", that wouldn't go over. Unless ... it was clearly a parody. Or in fact, they are also an actor, and small signals indicate which actor, avoiding reasonable confusion problems. Or any other reasonable mitigations are taken.
McConaughey couldn't even sue a movie about him, with reenactments of real incidents in his life, using an actor naturally/made-up to look nearly indistinguishable, as long as it was clear the actor was not McConaughey. (Using computers to create an exact likeness might be challengeable, depending on the specifics - as they would essentially be lifting his face directly from him. Which gets into the realm of unreasonable, because it wouldn't be a reasonable requirement of any bio to go that far.)
I'm mixed on this... there are always other actual people that will have matching voices or looks. Are they now effectively illegal for looking/sounding like they do?
IIRC, works have been sued for actors looking/sounding like other voice actors.
I think the parody law would make this moot. Unless he's made to be selling something, I'd imagine him being a public figure would make the trademarks meaningless.
I keep thinking that I want to see a "parody" of "James Bond (007)" called "Chad Bond (00G)" that is effectively classic bond style, but American and not any more campy than the earlier bond films were. Just actually being a classic Bond style, instead of a "for modern audiences" reshaping.
As with most things around AI, the problem is the scale. We are not ready for the amount of cease & desist court cases around individual likeness etc that are going to start flooding and overwhelming the system.
Meanwhile he has been doing TV ads for "AI" for years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7W__UoPyh4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4JNLL7U8H8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7W__UoPyh4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-35QjvFEmhE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvG41iEXFrU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZqmBcqDkyw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI2cBdo0XDw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvKDYQJ1QwM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9IqXij9Xk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OHD4sqCE3w
He keeps getting older, but the frontier models stay the same age.
It feels like one's likeness should be automatically assumed to be trademarked (or be trademarked by right through legislation)
So nobody raised in a similar culture developing effectively an indistinguishable voice or happens to look the same can be allowed to live/work?
That isn't how trademark law works.
The line is if the symbols/works are used in a context so they clearly intentionally, or by unnecessary/unreasonable lack of care, create confusion. Someone who looks and sounds like McConaughey just being themselves isn't a violation.
Look at existing trademarks. They are riddled with high similarity filings, but they co-exist as long as they are not used to create confusion.
The bar for any enforcement would be very high for humans, simply looking and behaving like themselves.
But if someone very much like McConaughey was used in a commercial portraying a fictional "famous actor", that wouldn't go over. Unless ... it was clearly a parody. Or in fact, they are also an actor, and small signals indicate which actor, avoiding reasonable confusion problems. Or any other reasonable mitigations are taken.
McConaughey couldn't even sue a movie about him, with reenactments of real incidents in his life, using an actor naturally/made-up to look nearly indistinguishable, as long as it was clear the actor was not McConaughey. (Using computers to create an exact likeness might be challengeable, depending on the specifics - as they would essentially be lifting his face directly from him. Which gets into the realm of unreasonable, because it wouldn't be a reasonable requirement of any bio to go that far.)
There have been lawsuits win where an actor looks or sounds like a famous actor already.
The specifics on those kinds of lawsuits are going to matter a lot.
I'm mixed on this... there are always other actual people that will have matching voices or looks. Are they now effectively illegal for looking/sounding like they do?
IIRC, works have been sued for actors looking/sounding like other voice actors.
Text-only:
https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1UaVvt
I think the parody law would make this moot. Unless he's made to be selling something, I'd imagine him being a public figure would make the trademarks meaningless.
I keep thinking that I want to see a "parody" of "James Bond (007)" called "Chad Bond (00G)" that is effectively classic bond style, but American and not any more campy than the earlier bond films were. Just actually being a classic Bond style, instead of a "for modern audiences" reshaping.
As with most things around AI, the problem is the scale. We are not ready for the amount of cease & desist court cases around individual likeness etc that are going to start flooding and overwhelming the system.
non-paywall WSJ source from earlier: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/matthew-mcconaughey-trademarks-h...
[dead]