Messy NFT drop angers infosec pioneers with unauthorized portraits

Re:Messy NFT drop angers infosec pioneers with unauthorized ... by nmstoker on Tuesday December 28, 2021 @03:07PM (#29717460)

IANAL but the legal concerns with an unauthorized portrait seem something of a stretch - it's not promoting something else, the portraits were the product and thus I'd be surprised if they were covered.

This is clearly very different from using a photo, along with "John Doe approves of our wonderful new electric toothbrush", which clearly would need John Doe's approval.

I'm sure there are some jurisdictions that are tougher but here I'm thinking mainly about US/UK general approach.

The portrait that was based on a copyright image may well be a problem though.

Of course it's understandable why the subjects might not be keen on the idea, but that's a different aspect.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Messy NFT drop angers infosec pioneers with unauthorized ... by nmstoker on Tuesday December 28, 2021 @05:41PM (#29719189)

Just to clarify a little, I'm not making the case that it was the right thing to do to post the NFTs, it's purely on whether unapproved portraits are allowed. Things like caricatures and satirical pictures do appear to be enabled on the same basis: caracturists do not need to seek permission, and it's not because they're satirising the subject that they get to do it. I'm pretty sure the same broad principal applies, but I'd welcome input from legally minded people here.

[ Parent | on HN ]