[jskek9]

So your business model is built on the presumption of possessing an inviolable license to simulate the likeness of others?

I’m not so sure that’s a stable basis given a lot of laws celebrities have gotten passed protecting control of their likeness.

This is a bit of a “I’m doing it on a computer so it’s different!” kind of thing that won’t necessarily legally fly.

Challenging the idea that someone can’t control the reproduction of their likeness full stop is settled in the general sense in law. Context shifting how the reproduction happens isn’t really much a difference maker.

[kauffj]

> So your business model is built on the presumption of possessing an inviolable license to simulate the likeness of others?

No. It's based on people desiring a publishing platform that does not allow interference from intermediaries ala YouTube, Facebook, or Amazon.

> Challenging the idea that someone can’t control the reproduction of their likeness full stop is settled in the general sense in law.

You're commenting on an article that says this content is probably legal. If you think it's not, it'd probably make more sense to comment on the top-level thread.