Fake Virtual 'Influencers' Are Running Into Real Legal Problems
The technology behind virtual influencers is starting to attract interest from venture capitalists, but advertisers may have to think twice about how they go about disclosing the machine behind the celebrity.
January 22, 2020 at 10:00 AM
4 minute read
Your next celebrity sighting may come with a wide variety of legal implications—and pixels—attached. Virtual influencers don't have parents, just digital animators that can make them appear remarkably life-like. Take Lil Miquela, who The New York Times reported had 1.6 million Instagram followers as of June 2019 as well as a devoted fan base on Spotify, some of whom took for granted the erroneous assumption that she was real flesh and blood.
Virtual celebrities are starting to crop up everywhere from advertisements to social media feeds to online customer service queues. And some may even bare an uncanny resemblance to certain movie stars or television personalities.
But while there are certainly some intellectual property (IP) issues raised over how the rights to a digitally created persona are apportioned, the real challenge for the law may lie more with questions surrounding advertising disclosures and what constitutes an infringement of someone's likeness.
"It will be really industry-specific as to whether using a virtual influencer will be worth the effort to make sure that your advertising is compliant," said Margaret Esquenet, a partner at Finnegan.
Problems in that domain may actually intensify as the technology behind virtual characters becomes more sophisticated or life-like. For example, an advertisement for a skin care product featuring a virtual influencer with a flawless complexion could potentially draw the ire of a competitor or even the Federal Trade Commission if the otherwise very human-looking figure isn't accompanied by a disclosure.
The line between what is real and fake has been further blurred by the proliferation of virtual avatars. Andrew Klungness, an attorney with Fenwick & West, noted he's seen a lot of venture capital dollars being invested in technology that can help users create life-like renderings of themselves. However, interested parties may want to think twice before using such a creation to incentivize a sale in California, which passed a law last July requiring bots to identify themselves.
"I could see personally a future where not only do you have "#ad," but "#virtualinfluencer," said Klungness.
Of course, why settle for an unknown when you can use a famous face? Klungness has already worked on deals involving flesh-and-blood celebrities signing over the rights to their virtual likenesses and sees the practice becoming more common as well-known personalities look for new ways to capitalize on their fame.
However, some companies looking to cut corners may elect to circumnavigate the rights-seeking phase altogether, settling for a virtual character that may be best described as Not-Quite-Tom-Hanks. If the real star behind "Forrest Gump" decided to take legal action, he could potentially be in for a bit of an uphill climb.
For starters, Klungness said there's not a ton of case law to fall back upon with regard to right of publicity. One of the more notable instances may be a 1993 case involving a Samsung ad featuring a robot that bore a resemblance to Vanna White of "Wheel of Fortune" fame. White sued under right of publicity, and while Samsung argued that what it had done was a parody, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ultimately determined that there was enough of a resemblance to award damages.
"I could just see that play out over and over again in the virtual area," Klungness said.
But no two celebrities are created the same. For example, one could argue that Kim Kardashian has carved out a very distinct image and likeness for herself, potentially making it easier to prove a right of publicity infringement. Tom Hanks may find it more difficult to lay claim to his "everyman" persona.
Fortunately, nice guys don't always finish last. Thomas Isaacson, a shareholder with Polsinelli, pointed to trademark law, where a legal analysis is often conducted to determine if a mark is likely to be confused with, say, the McDonald's Golden Arches. He thinks that a similar approach could be taken with a Not-Quite-Tom-Hanks bot.
"If you showed this bot to 100 people and said 'who does it look like' and 90 of them said 'that's Tom Hanks,' then that's evidence that its confusingly similar with a celebrity profile," Isaacson said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome', DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250