I’m a bit torn. I think personalities should at least be copyrightable and have IP rights, particularly in the case of VTubers, and avatar based entertainers (this would allow them to change their looks without changing their branding, completely). However, I think that if the user deliberately uses their avatar to act maliciously, then both the personality and the user/company behind them should be held accountable.
My side is against it. It comes down to the avatar representing some other entity, whether it is a person, group, or company. The entity behind the avatar should bear the legal responsibility for the actions of the avatar, because:
The avatar does not have consciousness or will; it is not responsible for its actions because the entity behind it is in control
The avatar cannot be used as a guard to do whatever the entity behind it wants and then neglect responsibility
How can an avatar be punished or prosecuted? To my understanding the entity behind the avatar would still bear the punishment -> legal responsibility is not on the avatar but the entity behind it
In the case of IP rights or copyrights, as for any other form of copyrighted property, the legal bearing is on the person. I, as a person, can copyright my avatar, but it does not mean that my avatar has its own legal responsibilities or rights.
I think it is a very interesting debate that took place today and valid points from both sides. I believe granting some rights to avatars that are highly congruent with their creators. Ex. If the creator and the avatar share the same names, identity, personalities etc. then the avatar could be considered an extension of the creator and therefore the creator takes responsibility for the avatar’s actions. and the ai should be granted high level of rights consistent to that of a human.
In my opinion, I think whether granting copyright and other personalities to Virtual Avatars or not depends on the individual cases. So it is difficult for me to simply choose a side. Just like the Morgan Freeman Deepfake mentioned by Mr. Fukuoka, if the virtual avatar is based on a real human-being or has specific elements based on a specific identity (For example, Mr. Bean), then I think the person obviously has the right to claim its copyright and IP rights. But for fully virtual characters like VTubers and other characters, differentiate the character itself and the legal person behind it (whether it’s an individual, a company or a group) is also important.
My personal opinion is the same as the one I argued during the debate, which is that I am against avatars having legal personalities. I think that avatars should be seen as proprietary assets of the people or companies that control them. Giving the avatars legal personalities themselves opens the door for the people behind the screen in real life to avoid culpability for potential malicious or malignant actions that they may take. I also think that this topic may tie in quite fittingly with the topic for next week about sexual harassment (perhaps through avatars) within the metaverse.
My opinion on this matter remains the same as the one I had during our class. I am indeed against avatars having legal personalities as I feel that it shows a major issue of today’s society: where are we putting the limits? This first makes me wonder of the overall value of having a consciousness and the ability of being aware of our own actions and the repercussions they might suscite. The people behind the avatar should be responsible for its actions. And second, it makes me think of how the internet gave this capacity and opportunity to people to “hide” behind their screens. This increased the level of harassment – a.k.a. cyberbullying – as people felt more comfortable sharing hate without being recognized. How would this not emphasize this tendency?
My opinion is against avatars having legal personalities. I believe we are not aware of the consequences that avatars and AI will have in the future and it is better to be conscious and value the world that we have right now. It is also true that the legality and consequences will vary depending on the country, so how to tackle the avatar problem should be considered also from a local point of view.
I agree with Aubrey’s statement that there should at least be protection for IP, as well as, privacy rights (where it’s applicable) for the owners/creators of the avatars. Of course, legal personalities does not necessarily mean the owners/creators should get to avoid accountability for the effects and consequences of the avatars’ actions, especially if harm has been done. Appropriate justice should be exercised in such cases. In that sense, I am for legal personalities.
However, if it means the controllers behind the avatars are able to untie themselves from the avatars’ actions then I am against it.
I’m in the same position I debated in class, which was against avatars having personalities.
I think now there are many ethical issues of giving avatars legal personalities, maybe more than profits of using them. Exploitation of avatars for nefarious purposes, information theft, identity theft, or the question of who is ultimately responsible for the actions or behavior of avatars are issues that might come up when using avatars with personalities.
As long as there are no proper safeguards for stopping misuse of avatars and preserving safety of people who are using the avatar and also people who are the audience of the avatar’s contents, avatars with personalities should be used cautiously.
I think that avatars should not be given legal personalities if that means recognizing them as autonomous humans who are responsible for their own actions. Since avatars are created and controlled by people, the owners/creators are responsible for anything that is done or said by the avatar. Thus, if the avatar is being used for malicious intentions, the owners/creators should be held accountable. That being said, I think that avatars should be able to be copyrighted and have IP rights, particularly character-based avatars not based on actual people.
I am unsure which side I will choose, as I think protecting the privacy of the creators who hid their characters behind imaginary characters for various considerations is essential. In addition, the avatar may have AI behind it, not a real person, so giving the avatar a legal personality may be an important factor in controlling this industry, with an emphasis on the necessity of preserving the IP copyrights of its owners, whether they are individuals or organizations and will be responsible of it. However, if this means that avatars made based on real human characters can be given an independent legal personality and do not represent the real person, then this may have a significant negative impact that allows the spread of deep-fake videos and the misuse of AI technology in distorting and defaming real people through misleading videos. I think it is important to prevent these practices and criminalize the design and use of avatars based on real people.
I think that avatars should not be given legal personalities. Largely because I believe blurring the lines between the virtual and real world is a bad idea due to potential confusion over which laws apply in which situations. It would also raise serious questions regarding ownership and intellectual property rights of content and assets
I think avatars should be given legal personalities if and only if a new set of policy is drawn that gives them accountability for their actions(i.e the creators who control the avatars to be sued). It’s not reasonable to take away other’s freedom of expression through avatar just because a small population of users will use it with malicious intent. Instead find a middle ground by create policies that can protect the community.
I believe avatars are not human entities hence are being controlled, as many others have said, through and individual or a company. Giving legal personalities to these avatars opens a loop hole for misuse and could mean that the people controlling the avatars could evade legal prosecution. However, given the audience and personification of these avatars I do think from a business and audience perspective, copyright laws and protection against defamation pose an interesting question. However, overall I believe avatars alone should not be their own separate legal entities.
I think avatars should not be given their own set of legal rights because creating new legal system for avatars would create several loopholes that would allow for misuse. Additionally, it would create conflict with current legal and judicial systems that would make it difficult to hold avatars and those controlling them accountable depending on the region they are active in – specifically when talking about privacy regulations. For example, if a user controlling an avatar is a citizen of the EU and prescribes to GDPR guidelines but commits an act that goes against privacy regulations while in the US – which policy system does is the avatar and the user controlling it prescribing to? Would they be committing a crime in both countries or would we need to create a boundary-less law and regulation system for avatar-only worlds?
I think avatars should not be granted moral rights. The widespread use of avatars is still in the infant stages (compared to its potential) which means that now is the time to critically define the legal boundaries. If we start giving legal rights now, then we embark on a path-dependent journey where future developments of avatars are going to be shaped by legal foundations that may have adverse consequences. This may for one limit the possibilities of how far we can develop avatars. For instance, cloning and customizing become seemingly more difficult. In a doomier scenario, we might regret acknowledging avatars by law if they are used in sophisticated ways where bad actors use their rights for their own benefit, at the expense of living and feeling human beings.
I personally think avatars should not be given legal rights, at least not legal rights in human society. In simple terms, legal rights mean a set of rights and duties regulated by the law to protect a person’s interest. For avatars especially commercial avatars operated by individuals or companies, the operator behind will have legal rights (e.g. patent rights, trademark rights, copyrights)to secure their business and property. However, if the avatars are given legal rights as legal entities defined in the laws, the internal properties of a human such as nationality, age, gender, etc. will have confusion and conflicts with the operator which may lead to the invalidation or abuse of the corresponding laws. To supplement customized legal rights that the operator cannot apply to their avatars, a new dedicated legal system should be established with avatars’ internal properties before giving them legal personalities.
My opinion regarding this matter is that “right now” i would be against avatar having legal personalities as it is still difficult to draw a line whether one are ai or not. Deepfake persona like the case mentioned in the class are one of the most vague case because people like grimes now gives the rights to everybody who are using her deepfake and ai persona. But as right now not everyone are well aware of this case, i believe it is still difficult to fully give legal rights to ai personalities matter. Until the line could be drawn and cleared out, i believe that we shall start by raising awareness regarding ai so that these could be well perceived and more studies are conducted.
I think that avatars should not be given legal personalities. I think that this could potentially change as technology advances, but as of now, like I’ve noticed many of my classmates have mentioned, there is generally a physical person who is connected to the avatar somewhere, even if it means tracing back to different parts of what makes up the avatar. So as long as there is a way for a physical being to be able to control the avatar in any type of way, I believe that legal rights and responsibilities would belong to that person(or people), rather than the avatar itself.
My point about this avatars is still vague whether is it real humans or not..But I do against giving avatars on legal personalities, because as I said before about avatars still vague structure which we couldn’t define the pointed avatars as a real humans of an AI face..
And when it comes to privacy, there could be possible as the face recognition to avatars be leaked which leads to more less-secured in using avatars as it being legalized.
I think giving avatars of legal personalities could be a crisis, as classmates say that giving avatars legal personalities could blur the lines between the virtual and real worlds. This may lead to confusion and legal disputes over the applicable law. And we don’t know how to define which responsibilities are human and which are not, so I do against giving avatars of legal personalities.
I can’t really think of immediate logical needs for avatar to be granted legal personality. No only it might blur the lines further on what is appropriate or otherwise within cross platforms interaction. It will also add complications to the currently existing issues regarding what-who avatar is and should be treated as in the increasingly integrated ecosystem. So, no, we should not.
I believe that granting legal personality to avatars could enhance their potential to contribute positively to the metaverse. However, we must also recognize that avatars are not human and may have limitations in their behavior and decision-making processes. Therefore, it is crucial to develop a framework of laws and regulations that balances the interests of both avatar and user, and ensures that avatars operate in a way that upholds ethical and moral standards. This can help to maximize the benefits of legal recognition for avatars while minimizing the risks of abuse or exploitation.
「1」への 23 件のコメント
I’m a bit torn. I think personalities should at least be copyrightable and have IP rights, particularly in the case of VTubers, and avatar based entertainers (this would allow them to change their looks without changing their branding, completely). However, I think that if the user deliberately uses their avatar to act maliciously, then both the personality and the user/company behind them should be held accountable.
My side is against it. It comes down to the avatar representing some other entity, whether it is a person, group, or company. The entity behind the avatar should bear the legal responsibility for the actions of the avatar, because:
The avatar does not have consciousness or will; it is not responsible for its actions because the entity behind it is in control
The avatar cannot be used as a guard to do whatever the entity behind it wants and then neglect responsibility
How can an avatar be punished or prosecuted? To my understanding the entity behind the avatar would still bear the punishment -> legal responsibility is not on the avatar but the entity behind it
In the case of IP rights or copyrights, as for any other form of copyrighted property, the legal bearing is on the person. I, as a person, can copyright my avatar, but it does not mean that my avatar has its own legal responsibilities or rights.
I think it is a very interesting debate that took place today and valid points from both sides. I believe granting some rights to avatars that are highly congruent with their creators. Ex. If the creator and the avatar share the same names, identity, personalities etc. then the avatar could be considered an extension of the creator and therefore the creator takes responsibility for the avatar’s actions. and the ai should be granted high level of rights consistent to that of a human.
In my opinion, I think whether granting copyright and other personalities to Virtual Avatars or not depends on the individual cases. So it is difficult for me to simply choose a side. Just like the Morgan Freeman Deepfake mentioned by Mr. Fukuoka, if the virtual avatar is based on a real human-being or has specific elements based on a specific identity (For example, Mr. Bean), then I think the person obviously has the right to claim its copyright and IP rights. But for fully virtual characters like VTubers and other characters, differentiate the character itself and the legal person behind it (whether it’s an individual, a company or a group) is also important.
My personal opinion is the same as the one I argued during the debate, which is that I am against avatars having legal personalities. I think that avatars should be seen as proprietary assets of the people or companies that control them. Giving the avatars legal personalities themselves opens the door for the people behind the screen in real life to avoid culpability for potential malicious or malignant actions that they may take. I also think that this topic may tie in quite fittingly with the topic for next week about sexual harassment (perhaps through avatars) within the metaverse.
My opinion on this matter remains the same as the one I had during our class. I am indeed against avatars having legal personalities as I feel that it shows a major issue of today’s society: where are we putting the limits? This first makes me wonder of the overall value of having a consciousness and the ability of being aware of our own actions and the repercussions they might suscite. The people behind the avatar should be responsible for its actions. And second, it makes me think of how the internet gave this capacity and opportunity to people to “hide” behind their screens. This increased the level of harassment – a.k.a. cyberbullying – as people felt more comfortable sharing hate without being recognized. How would this not emphasize this tendency?
My opinion is against avatars having legal personalities. I believe we are not aware of the consequences that avatars and AI will have in the future and it is better to be conscious and value the world that we have right now. It is also true that the legality and consequences will vary depending on the country, so how to tackle the avatar problem should be considered also from a local point of view.
I agree with Aubrey’s statement that there should at least be protection for IP, as well as, privacy rights (where it’s applicable) for the owners/creators of the avatars. Of course, legal personalities does not necessarily mean the owners/creators should get to avoid accountability for the effects and consequences of the avatars’ actions, especially if harm has been done. Appropriate justice should be exercised in such cases. In that sense, I am for legal personalities.
However, if it means the controllers behind the avatars are able to untie themselves from the avatars’ actions then I am against it.
I’m in the same position I debated in class, which was against avatars having personalities.
I think now there are many ethical issues of giving avatars legal personalities, maybe more than profits of using them. Exploitation of avatars for nefarious purposes, information theft, identity theft, or the question of who is ultimately responsible for the actions or behavior of avatars are issues that might come up when using avatars with personalities.
As long as there are no proper safeguards for stopping misuse of avatars and preserving safety of people who are using the avatar and also people who are the audience of the avatar’s contents, avatars with personalities should be used cautiously.
I think that avatars should not be given legal personalities if that means recognizing them as autonomous humans who are responsible for their own actions. Since avatars are created and controlled by people, the owners/creators are responsible for anything that is done or said by the avatar. Thus, if the avatar is being used for malicious intentions, the owners/creators should be held accountable. That being said, I think that avatars should be able to be copyrighted and have IP rights, particularly character-based avatars not based on actual people.
I am unsure which side I will choose, as I think protecting the privacy of the creators who hid their characters behind imaginary characters for various considerations is essential. In addition, the avatar may have AI behind it, not a real person, so giving the avatar a legal personality may be an important factor in controlling this industry, with an emphasis on the necessity of preserving the IP copyrights of its owners, whether they are individuals or organizations and will be responsible of it. However, if this means that avatars made based on real human characters can be given an independent legal personality and do not represent the real person, then this may have a significant negative impact that allows the spread of deep-fake videos and the misuse of AI technology in distorting and defaming real people through misleading videos. I think it is important to prevent these practices and criminalize the design and use of avatars based on real people.
I think that avatars should not be given legal personalities. Largely because I believe blurring the lines between the virtual and real world is a bad idea due to potential confusion over which laws apply in which situations. It would also raise serious questions regarding ownership and intellectual property rights of content and assets
I think avatars should be given legal personalities if and only if a new set of policy is drawn that gives them accountability for their actions(i.e the creators who control the avatars to be sued). It’s not reasonable to take away other’s freedom of expression through avatar just because a small population of users will use it with malicious intent. Instead find a middle ground by create policies that can protect the community.
I believe avatars are not human entities hence are being controlled, as many others have said, through and individual or a company. Giving legal personalities to these avatars opens a loop hole for misuse and could mean that the people controlling the avatars could evade legal prosecution. However, given the audience and personification of these avatars I do think from a business and audience perspective, copyright laws and protection against defamation pose an interesting question. However, overall I believe avatars alone should not be their own separate legal entities.
I think avatars should not be given their own set of legal rights because creating new legal system for avatars would create several loopholes that would allow for misuse. Additionally, it would create conflict with current legal and judicial systems that would make it difficult to hold avatars and those controlling them accountable depending on the region they are active in – specifically when talking about privacy regulations. For example, if a user controlling an avatar is a citizen of the EU and prescribes to GDPR guidelines but commits an act that goes against privacy regulations while in the US – which policy system does is the avatar and the user controlling it prescribing to? Would they be committing a crime in both countries or would we need to create a boundary-less law and regulation system for avatar-only worlds?
I think avatars should not be granted moral rights. The widespread use of avatars is still in the infant stages (compared to its potential) which means that now is the time to critically define the legal boundaries. If we start giving legal rights now, then we embark on a path-dependent journey where future developments of avatars are going to be shaped by legal foundations that may have adverse consequences. This may for one limit the possibilities of how far we can develop avatars. For instance, cloning and customizing become seemingly more difficult. In a doomier scenario, we might regret acknowledging avatars by law if they are used in sophisticated ways where bad actors use their rights for their own benefit, at the expense of living and feeling human beings.
I personally think avatars should not be given legal rights, at least not legal rights in human society. In simple terms, legal rights mean a set of rights and duties regulated by the law to protect a person’s interest. For avatars especially commercial avatars operated by individuals or companies, the operator behind will have legal rights (e.g. patent rights, trademark rights, copyrights)to secure their business and property. However, if the avatars are given legal rights as legal entities defined in the laws, the internal properties of a human such as nationality, age, gender, etc. will have confusion and conflicts with the operator which may lead to the invalidation or abuse of the corresponding laws. To supplement customized legal rights that the operator cannot apply to their avatars, a new dedicated legal system should be established with avatars’ internal properties before giving them legal personalities.
My opinion regarding this matter is that “right now” i would be against avatar having legal personalities as it is still difficult to draw a line whether one are ai or not. Deepfake persona like the case mentioned in the class are one of the most vague case because people like grimes now gives the rights to everybody who are using her deepfake and ai persona. But as right now not everyone are well aware of this case, i believe it is still difficult to fully give legal rights to ai personalities matter. Until the line could be drawn and cleared out, i believe that we shall start by raising awareness regarding ai so that these could be well perceived and more studies are conducted.
I think that avatars should not be given legal personalities. I think that this could potentially change as technology advances, but as of now, like I’ve noticed many of my classmates have mentioned, there is generally a physical person who is connected to the avatar somewhere, even if it means tracing back to different parts of what makes up the avatar. So as long as there is a way for a physical being to be able to control the avatar in any type of way, I believe that legal rights and responsibilities would belong to that person(or people), rather than the avatar itself.
My point about this avatars is still vague whether is it real humans or not..But I do against giving avatars on legal personalities, because as I said before about avatars still vague structure which we couldn’t define the pointed avatars as a real humans of an AI face..
And when it comes to privacy, there could be possible as the face recognition to avatars be leaked which leads to more less-secured in using avatars as it being legalized.
I think giving avatars of legal personalities could be a crisis, as classmates say that giving avatars legal personalities could blur the lines between the virtual and real worlds. This may lead to confusion and legal disputes over the applicable law. And we don’t know how to define which responsibilities are human and which are not, so I do against giving avatars of legal personalities.
I can’t really think of immediate logical needs for avatar to be granted legal personality. No only it might blur the lines further on what is appropriate or otherwise within cross platforms interaction. It will also add complications to the currently existing issues regarding what-who avatar is and should be treated as in the increasingly integrated ecosystem. So, no, we should not.
I believe that granting legal personality to avatars could enhance their potential to contribute positively to the metaverse. However, we must also recognize that avatars are not human and may have limitations in their behavior and decision-making processes. Therefore, it is crucial to develop a framework of laws and regulations that balances the interests of both avatar and user, and ensures that avatars operate in a way that upholds ethical and moral standards. This can help to maximize the benefits of legal recognition for avatars while minimizing the risks of abuse or exploitation.