Interesting move last Friday — a government entity dropped a video featuring Sabrina Carpenter's image, but conveniently skipped licensing her actual tracks. Using someone's face without their copyrighted audio? That's the gray zone where traditional IP law meets modern content creation.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
8 Likes
Reward
8
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
GasFeeNightmare
· 12-06 04:59
Wait, just using a face without buying music rights? This move is really wild. Is the government starting to play this game too?
View OriginalReply0
DiamondHands
· 12-06 04:58
Wait, government agencies use facial recognition but not music? That’s wild, they might as well write “legally skirting the line” on their faces.
View OriginalReply0
BTCRetirementFund
· 12-06 04:55
Wow, that move is really something—borrowing the face but not the song? The legal loophole with this IP is just ridiculously huge.
View OriginalReply0
ChainSherlockGirl
· 12-06 04:37
Interestingly, this is a typical case of "borrowing the face but not the voice." According to my analysis, there must be something going on behind the scenes that can't be explained by on-chain data.
Interesting move last Friday — a government entity dropped a video featuring Sabrina Carpenter's image, but conveniently skipped licensing her actual tracks. Using someone's face without their copyrighted audio? That's the gray zone where traditional IP law meets modern content creation.