Jump to content

Upon Recent Review of Privacy Rights


TroyCampbell

Recommended Posts

I've recently reviewed the "Privacy Rights" of both United States of America. This was brought on my the ongoing discussion in OpNet 2017 IC thread titled "I Am Done With My Temples."

American Law - Appropriation of Name or Likeness - The American version of Privacy Rights pretty much says that your rights of likeness, name, etc., are protected from commercial benefit. Other states have not limited this to commercial benefit, but personal benefit as well. This is a law that is currently being tested with cases like ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publishing, Inc in 2003. The case came to the conclusion that the painting was an expression of an idea, and not merely a recreation of a image, so it was protected under the First Amendment. A more hazy picture of Privacy Rights is included within The Winter Bros v. DC Comics.

Mexican Law - Privacy Rights under Mexican Law - Again, another page of legal babble. It comes down to if you have received any consequential damages or losses, or moral damages from the 'violation'.

"Moral damage is understood as the injury a person suffers in his sentiments, affections, beliefs, decorum, honor, reputation, private life, configuration and physical aspects, or in the opinion that others have about that person. It will be presumed that moral damage was inflicted when the liberty or the physical and psychological integrity of any person is violated or deteriorated"

I am not sure that law has made a huge stride into more specifics of privacy rights from now until 2017, or whether Novas have to do with anything in that area. But under American Law, it would seem an argument could be made against the creation of the statues, in that they are merely recreations of the images of Novas. But it seems to me, under Mexican Law, that no crime has been committed. The lives of the Nova's were not negatively effected in any manner described above. I am not even sure how these laws translate across borders.

Why I decided to post this I am unsure. It relates to a subject, and I need something to do, I s'pose. If you know more of Law, or trip over something that I previously did not know, please strike up conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waste of time bro.

Now that Lame Alice has made the damn things no other character can destroy them without the player's consent.

At least that's the assumption I'm under. Condsidering that it wouldn't matter much anyways since now that he knows some of us are a bit irritated by it he'll simply just say "Good Alice didn't make a 'Revenant' statue anyways." Since no list was ever posted to begin with.

He good at switching up his stories like that. Frankly a list should have been presented of which statues Good Alice made of what novas prior to announcing the completion of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should of, but shit happens.

Again, I wasn't particularly yelling for or against the destruction of said statues, I was just bringing it to everyones attention so they don't make an idiot out of themselves by making up crap. Education, really.

Though my stance on the entire situation is 'I don't care'. If someone I don't know somewhere finds a picture of me on the internet and decides to recreate it. Let em'. Their waste of time.

And hey. If my face is the trademark of some corporation someday.. God damn. I feel sorry for that corporation.

-----

Oh, and by the way. My time is already worthless. I cannot waste it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troy, thanks for doing the research.

The Mexican law brings up a point I've been considering for one of my characters (Preston), who is a practicing Catholic. He would find a representation of himself in a setting that Alice clearly defines as a temple, truly upsetting to his religious beliefs. I will probably have to talk over this with Alice's player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She didn't define the statues as a temple.

She defined the statues as art that she created, that were contained within her house. The house resides near the fifty temples.

The statues were for art purposes only.

Or at least thats what I thought from the way she said it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is not going to make a statue of Revenant or just about any other chi-town natives.

If you want to know if there is a statue of your character or not, you can you know ask me.. Until then it is a "chilanger (sp) cat" issue.

And before you say that is bullshit, I am not the one who says they hack into major cannon data bases to get private info on every known nova...But I know a group of novas who do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Revenant
Waste of time bro.

Now that Lame Alice has made the damn things no other character can destroy them without the player's consent.


He good at switching up his stories like that. Frankly a list should have been presented of which statues Good Alice made of what novas prior to announcing the completion of them.


And you assume that I would not let other destroy them. How much fun it must be to be in your wold. I offered LA, that we could do what we are doing in the story off camera. She choose a story.I am happy because this option, but I would not have changed the out come had she chosen to do so off camera. I am enjoying the simple story and I understand she is enjoying it as well.

And do not ask people do think you would not do yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Courier
Pretty near every nova is a public figure. Other people can make art of public figures without permission.


Racist and not true. Being a nova does not automatically make you a public figure. Moreso, using that nova's image for profit, or to cause emotional, or financial damage, is illegal. The problem lies in that the nova has to prove the damage was suffered.
If the defense is "well, they're a nova" the defense will be the Zurich Accords.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You take part in WCK. You because of this support the idea that the WCK has hacked into every major data base on novas in the world, and has detail documents on every nova who has be documented. That is every nova here. That also mean that you suport the idea that the WCK has out smarted every NPC agency that deals with novas. But hey getting pictures of novas is a way bigger deal than hacking Utopia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Catalyst
And you assume that I would not let other destroy them. How much fun it must be to be in your wold. I offered LA, that we could do what we are doing in the story off camera. She choose a story.I am happy because this option, but I would not have changed the out come had she chosen to do so off camera. I am enjoying the simple story and I understand she is enjoying it as well.


Actually, you first broached the possibility of a fiction, I was agreeable to it, you were the one that made the final decision though as to on camera or off with the understanding that I'd do the first post. Just to clarify.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ravenshire/Preston brings up a good point. It's not necessarily misappropriation of likeness that had Lou Anne originally on the warpath about this so to speak. It's the Graven Images aspect with regards to the Statues being revealed in the I've finished my Temples thread in such a way that is sounded like they were intended to placed in the temples.

But also (not easy to prove in court necessarily) but a version of Defamation of Character relating to that... If there are statues of you in existance, some people will assume (rightly or wrongly) that you, the depicted, approved the statue. For some that creates a situation that is unacceptable, especially if combined with the religious/philosophical bent mentioned earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lou Anne Burgess
Ravenshire/Preston brings up a good point. It's not necessarily misappropriation of likeness that had Lou Anne originally on the warpath about this so to speak. It's the Graven Images aspect with regards to the Statues being revealed in the I've finished my Temples thread in such a way that is sounded like they were intended to placed in the temples.

But also (not easy to prove in court necessarily) but a version of Defamation of Character relating to that... If there are statues of you in existance, some people will assume (rightly or wrongly) that you, the depicted, approved the statue. For some that creates a situation that is unacceptable, especially if combined with the religious/philosophical bent mentioned earlier.



That is a very, very good point.
Except that it has already been made painfully clear that the statues were not in the temples to be worshipped, nor did she ever imply that the lot of you had statues that might be being worshipped. She had made it clear enough that the statues were in her home, and not being worshipped, before she had to come out and yell it.

Its kind of like being angry at someone who said "Hitler is not cool" because you just didn't hear the 'not' part.

And as to word of these statues getting out, that is completely up to the people here. Alice stated very clearly that they were in her private home, and you could take the statues and do with it that you like. Seeing as you found this out over the OpNet from the person themselves, it is painfully obvious that this is not in the press. And the only way for word to spread is by others on the OpNet. So under the unlikely circumstances that a tabloid finds this out, travels to Mexico, breaks into a Nova's house, finds the statues, photographs the statues, and releases them before anyone takes a step in, all that would be released is that "Nova Shrine Discovered in Heart of Mexico!", which would show that someone very fucking good at sculpting. I think you are misinterpreting America upon seeing these statues.


This is all just my outlook on the entire thing, and i'm sure that I am incredibly out of touch with America in AEONverse in the year 2017.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Jager
Racist and not true. Being a nova does not automatically make you a public figure. Moreso, using that nova's image for profit, or to cause emotional, or financial damage, is illegal. The problem lies in that the nova has to prove the damage was suffered.
If the defense is "well, they're a nova" the defense will be the Zurich Accords.
How often is nova "X" in the news papers? The tabolds? Have they ever done elite work? PU work? How many web sites exist devoted to them? Have they ever given a news interview? Say, after they erupted?

It is possible for a nova to not be a public figure, maybe even without cipher, but if there are a dozen fan web sites devoted to you, it seems like a hard argument to make.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...