Holographic Laws

[JirinPanthosa]

In real life do people own the right to their own likeness? They have to sign releases to appear in TV shows and movies, but then athletes are required to do so just for the opportunity to play.

The question of the morality of recreating somebody on the holodeck is an interesting one, because a person's likeness is not THEM, it's an automaton that looks like them. Strictly reasoning based on the harm principle, you're not violating anyone's right to life, liberty and property. But without some sort of release signed I guess it'd be like being a peeping tom. Then again, if you made a drawing of somebody speculating what you think they might look like naked, would anyone get arrested for that?

If somebody made a simulation of me, I sure wouldn't like it, but making somebody feel bad is not justification for a coercive law.

If there were holodecks in real life it'd probably work a similar way. You'd need to sign a release for your likeness to be used for commercial use. Private programs would fall in the 'creepy asshole' category but would probably be legal as long as the likeness was speculative or given freely and not based on taking spy photographs.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

what they don't know won't hurt them

Not buying it.

 

[think]

In real life do people own the right to their own likeness? They have to sign releases to appear in TV shows and movies, but then athletes are required to do so just for the opportunity to play.

But sometimes I find it is almost a free for all of nonsense with how the personalities of various individuals are portrayed on the screen or even person to person in a way of just mimicking or copying what is done again in some kind of look alike creation...

The question of the morality of recreating somebody on the holodeck is an interesting one, because a person's likeness is not THEM, it's an automaton that looks like them. Strictly reasoning based on the harm principle, you're not violating anyone's right to life, liberty and property. But without some sort of release signed I guess it'd be like being a peeping tom. Then again, if you made a drawing of somebody speculating what you think they might look like naked, would anyone get arrested for that?

sometimes this naked copy of the original is a parody of personalities in a way for me... not that I do exact recreations but that I might develop similar temperament had I found that I liked that temperament of the original .. you know..? maybe not?

If somebody made a simulation of me, I sure wouldn't like it, but making somebody feel bad is not justification for a coercive law.

I too at first found mimicing and copies of my patterns of life a bit overwhelming but to be a complement (which is where I think the copycat is coping out( when the idea that copying is the greatest flatrery leaves me unease as well --- but I have gotten used to some of the music I make being recreated in different forms as to the fact that what I did was good where the pro's like it and dubbed it into there style has become something I would do but not as often as it gets done to me...

If there were holodecks in real life it'd probably work a similar way. You'd need to sign a release for your likeness to be used for commercial use. Private programs would fall in the 'creepy asshole' category but would probably be legal as long as the likeness was speculative or given freely and not based on taking spy photographs.

Back to topic sorta.. I had sim character I simmed in a non-video scripted like trek sim.. that was a hologram and in the end the hologram had metamorphosized-- into flesh and blood.. for what end I never really finished the character creations lines of work..(never worked that out as to the "why" that happened)

 

[marsh8472]

Not buying it.

No one is technically being used because the holograms are not real. It only seems real to the user in their mind. It's just like pretending.

 

[Paul Weaver]

Tuvok used people's images without permission in worst case scenario. Why was that any different to the doctor using them in author author?

 

[marsh8472]

Tycoon used people's images without permission in worst case scenario. Why was that any different to the doctor using them in author author?

The doctors holonovel reached a larger audience. Plus episode "worst case scenario" was before "message in a bottle" where they still have had no contact with the alpha quadrant yet.

If permission is needed to use people's physical parameters or even property in someone's simulations I'd expect that would make the holodeck less fun of an idea. And having to report how their simulations are being treated and used for would make it less fun too.

Should the constitution be amended for a person's hologram be an extension of themselves or considered their property? Right now I would say people have a first amendment right to express themselves on a holodeck however they wish. Even if a majority object to the idea of being used on the holodeck without their knowledge, the first amendment is supposed to protect people against the opinions of the majority. And while on that subject amended to include rights for holograms that obtain sentience? Equal rights or some limited rights?

 

[Shawnster]

At what point does art and an artist fall under legal authority and regulation? I think if we look at this issue from it's 21st century counterparts, we might get somewhere.

An artist can sit in a park and sketch everyone she sees. There is no legal or moral violation. At some point, though, this changes. Sure an artist can privately draw pictures of Madonna, but if she tries to sell those images she might be sued for trademark or copywriter infringement. I'm sure Madonna has trademarked her image to prevent bootleg posters from being legal. Is the difference in this case public vs. private use? Madonna doesn't care if her fans draw her picture, just don't make them available for purchase.

Same way with fan productions which CBS recently came down on. Any fan can make a private Star Trek movie. If they want to share the movie online with the public, they must follow CBS's guidelines and limitations.

Back when the game Quake first came out, we made skins of two of our co-workers one night for the game. We also made skins of the Shrine from the Hyperion series. Nothing illegal about that but we were just 3 guys playing a multiuser FPS. We surely would have gotten in trouble if we tried to sell the Shrike skin or gotten the ire up of our co-workers if they found out we made images of them to shoot.

That was just a silly game and I think we only did it one night. Making images of someone you know simply to destroy might fall under ethical taboos or be a sign of psychological issues. Burning effigies in public is protected speech because it's making a political statement (and burning an effigy in private is pointless). However, if I regularly put the image of someone I know on bullseyes to repeatedly shoot at or if I repeatedly dress up mannequins as someone I know so I can shoot or hack it to bits again and again might get me a visit to a shrink. It definitely would cause the person I know some concern and they would not want to be around me.

Public figures seem to have less expectation of privacy than private figures. Halloween costumes, posters, artwork, paparazzi photos... all of these are common and legal (well, the paparazzi cross the line from time to time).

Same holds true for the sequel interaction with artwork or images. Mastubating to someone's picture might not be illegal but it would definitely cause some questions. The porn industry is evidence enough that sometimes this is acceptable culturally and any taboos is on an individual bais. On the other hand, a private individual who did not pose or consent for their image to be used in a sequel nature would likely take offense and, again, avoid the perpetrator. Depending on whose image is being used and their relationship or connection with the user might also indicate other issues at hand (pun).

Really, would millions of people use the holders for serial use? As prevent as porn is now it's still not like the majority of people are entertained by it. The number of people who involve themselves in sexting, cyber sex, phone sex, etc... is fewer still despite the fact that telephones and texting or online chat rooms are easily accessed by anyone who wants. These activities simply don't appeal to everyone. Holodeck encounters might also have similar effects. People know that no matter how real it is, the activity is not for them, doesn't appeal to them etc..

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Author Author is more a case of civil damages possibly being owed, legally speaking. It could be interpreted as not being changed enough from the real person to be considered libelous.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Hollow Pursuits was probably the first time I seriously questioned holodeck ethics. Barclay engaging in romantic interactions with holo versions of his crewmates was beyond creepy and an invasion of privacy. I think there ought to be security protocols for unauthorized use of the likeness of, I don't know, living people? Something to that effect? Geordi nearly crossed that line, but his primary intent for that program (saving the ship) was legitimate.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Is it an invasion of privacy though? You own your body, not necessarily your image.

The difference between Worst Case Scenario and Author Author is that all consumers of Tuvok's training scenario knew it was fictitious. Consumers of Author Author not knowing any better may think the Voyager crew really is that bad.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Is it an invasion of privacy though? You own your body, not necessarily your image.

I think one should own the rights to their image and likeness. It's invasive. Kind of like how Leonard Nimoy sued Heineken for using his likeness to sell beer with gaudy billboards without his permission. Or when celebrities' cloud accounts get hacked and their private photos are publicly released. That's not okay. Not precisely the same as engaging with a holodeck recreation of a real person, but it gets at the same issue: whether your image and likeness is your property. I think it should be.

 

[marsh8472]

Even in today's society, law enforcement and civil lawsuits generally only involve cases where someone is making a public profit off of someone else. If things are kept private and not shared to the public people don't seem to care as much.

Here's what Georgie thought of Barclay's program

LAFORGE: Hey, Barclay, I've spent a few hours on the holodeck too, you know. Now, as far as I'm concerned what you do in the holodeck is your own business, as long as it doesn't interfere with your work.

Live and let live - you should tolerate the opinions and behavior of others so that they will similarly tolerate your own.

Sure murdering a hologram is disturbing but maybe other people find something you do disturbing too but that doesn't mean we should threaten someone's freedom with criminal punishments over it. It's not much different than playing grand theft auto.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Even in today's society, law enforcement and civil lawsuits generally only involve cases where someone is making a public profit off of someone else. If things are kept private and not shared to the public people don't seem to care as much.

Here's what Georgie thought of Barclay's program

LAFORGE: Hey, Barclay, I've spent a few hours on the holodeck too, you know. Now, as far as I'm concerned what you do in the holodeck is your own business, as long as it doesn't interfere with your work.

Live and let live - you should tolerate the opinions and behavior of others so that they will similarly tolerate your own.

Sure murdering a hologram is disturbing but maybe other people find something you do disturbing too but that doesn't mean we should threaten someone's freedom with criminal punishments over it. It's not much different than playing grand theft auto.

GTA isn't based on real people though. Every time someone catches another crewmember messing around with holodeck versions of themselves, they are appalled and disgusted. And justifiably so. It's a violation of their privacy.

EDIT: With the holodeck's ability to recreate a person almost exactly, and in some cases for those holodeck creations to achieve sentience, this issue isn't about "live and let live" as it is "respect the privacy rights of others."

 

[marsh8472]

GTA isn't based on real people though. Every time someone catches another crewmember messing around with holodeck versions of themselves, they are appalled and disgusted. And justifiably so. It's a violation of their privacy.

EDIT: With the holodeck's ability to recreate a person almost exactly, and in some cases for those holodeck creations to achieve sentience, this issue isn't about "live and let live" as it is "respect the privacy rights of others."

If criminalized should it be

a municipal crime where a fine is imposed and possible loss of holodeck privilege.

A Misdemeanor with bigger fines and maybe some jailtime

A felony, high fines and potentially years of jail

 

[Balok's Decoy]

If criminalized should it be

a municipal crime where a fine is imposed and possible loss of holodeck privilege.

A Misdemeanor with bigger fines and maybe some jailtime

A felony, high fines and potentially years of jail

This is Star Trek we're talking about here. There's no jail, no money, etc. The penalty would be a stern talking to from the Captain.

In all seriousness though, all you'd need is a security code that prevents the computer from producing an exact likeness of a real person without their permission. The penalty for violating that person's trust and privacy doesn't need to be severe -- say, revoke their holodeck privileges for a while.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Used privately, the holodeck is a manifestation of the imagination. Monitoring and restricting what one can do in the holodeck privately seems a little too "thought police" to me.

Publishing holonovels or sex programs for public consumption, that's another matter entirely.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Sure murdering a hologram is disturbing but maybe other people find something you do disturbing too but that doesn't mean we should threaten someone's freedom with criminal punishments over it.

Remember what I just said. If there's somebody out there who went to all the trouble to craft a holodeck program whereby they repeatedly murder a holographic version of you, perhaps they might want to murder the REAL you. (Otherwise, why would they bother?)

Wouldn't you want to know about it, if this were the case?

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Remember what I just said. If there's somebody out there who went to all the trouble to craft a holodeck program whereby they repeatedly murder a holographic version of you, perhaps they might want to murder the REAL you. (Otherwise, why would they bother?)

I'd say that the existence of such a program is compelling evidence after the fact, certainly. However, I believe the implication of the 'Tuvok strangles Neelix' simulation was as a 'safe outlet' to avoid harming the real Neelix. Which seems plausible enough to me.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I believe the implication of the 'Tuvok strangles Neelix' simulation was as a 'safe outlet' to avoid harming the real Neelix. Which seems plausible enough to me.

Perhaps. But it would still creep me out, knowing there's somebody out there who even fantasizes about killing me. And I'd want to know about it - so I can know WHY they want to kill me. Wouldn't you?

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Perhaps. But it would still creep me out, knowing there's somebody out there who even fantasizes about killing me. And I'd want to know about it - so I can know WHY they want to kill me. Wouldn't you?

That's fair enough, but not necessarily grounds for prosecution before the fact.