Can A Public Leader Protect His / Her Personality & Trademarks Rights? This Dilemma I Had The Other Day! Because The Answer Is Not That Simple Comparing To The Cases Of Actors / Actresses / Entertainers!

 

You’re a Public Government figure. Can you protect your Personality Rights as long as you’re serving the government or public? Or, can a politician / leader galvanize the fruits of his name or surname as Trademarks rights? Can, or, should he/she be ‘fully’ protected by the Copyrights or Trademarks Act? If I were the judge, I wouldn’t consider this question in black & white, nor would give protection in absolute! And the reason I’m going to explain herein underneath!

When you’re appointed or elected as the servant of the government or leader of public, then, you lose some of your personality rights, because, you would be discussed, cherished, blamed, criticized, commended, condemned, as long as you’re there on that position. Now, I’m not in favour of mutilating the morality rights of any politician or leader, which has become a trend, especially with the help of Slop AIs. But, if something is done more academically, with intellectual integrity, in a more refined and subtle manner, including a parody; then that part shouldn’t be considered as violation of personality rights!

I think there was a time, decades back, when liberals used to be more intellectually creative, but in the last 30 years, it seems, for the liberals and especially for the left, it has become more challenging to be more creative!

So, if someone is making caricature of yours, or, making a parody in the most refined and intellectual manner, then as a Politician or Leader, one shouldn’t be complaining about the rights, copyrights, personality rights! And alike the journalists and mainstream have the rights to exploit Fair Use, so should such rights be extended to the general pubic at large as well. Reacting on anything or on anyone, shows one’s own insecurities, and thus, I don’t think the said person is suitable to govern the public!

Again, I’m contending when the moral rights of anyone have not been mutilated! But, this liberty to the public at large should be extended, as long as any person is in the public domain serving as the servant of the government or public.

CAVEAT ->

The ‘lesser’ the number of NGOs in any nation, the ‘more’ the progress that nation will make! And if any nation’s economy is driven by NGOs, then that nation is not a nation at all! And I don’t support NGOs driven hit-job criticisms! Thus, this distinction should be made while granting Personality Rights to the Leaders!

Am I missing something! 😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi

The Ethical Legalities In AI vs AI Suits That Are Never Argued!

 

How many of the cases we’ve seen wherein one AI company sued another AI company for the violation of the BERNE or TRIPS or PARIS Convention? None! In the recent case of Grok VS OpenAI (or Musk VS Sam) too, what exactly is the dispute? That any non-profit should not be allowed to work for profit, else, this will send a wrong message, creating a wrong precedence! And secondly, Musk alleging that, OpenAI wanted to bring him as the shareholder, which Musk considered as bribe (check again for the exact wordings)!

 We have witnessed many cross-litigations in Tech Industry whether it belonged to the Search Engine Giants for monopolies under the Anti-Competitive / Anti-Trust Laws, or, of the IP (especially Patents) infringement cases going back to the 1990s, in which it was argued from  -> that the IP must be protected, to, one cannot enjoy the monopoly in the Market, citing examples of Netscape Navigator vs Internet Explorer, to,  Duck Duck Go vs Google Search! As we all know that to become the monopoly itself, certain backing is required!

But in the modern times, how many of us have witnessed that one AI company is suing another AI company stating that, if the dilution of the BERNE or TRIPS or Paris Convention is allowed, then, it would send  wrong precedence, just alike in the case of Musk vs Sam, wherein Musk has argued that, if the non-profits are allowed to go for profit, then it will send a wrong message & precedence! Back then, Nadella, when Altman withdrew from the Microsoft, stated that if today, these Gen AI companies, and especially signalling to the ChatGPT, are closed, then the IP of everyone would automatically be protected. Now I don’t remember his exact words, that’s why I’m not mentioning herein (sic), and as I couldn’t find that statement as well, so one can cross-verify that, and kindly let me know also if this is wrong!

Except for this statement, I haven’t heard from a single CEO in the World running any AI company that they should be stopped if they can’t protect the IP Rights of -> others! Yet, when it comes to Anti-Trust laws, to, Non OR For Profits cases, to AI companies’ own AI IP rights; then, they will come in the Media and seek their blessings to remain relevant in the Media for their own sake!

Thus, it would be a pleasure to hear from some CEO of any AI company that, what they’ve done so far by burning and butchering BERNE or Paris Convention or TRIPS, shouldn’t have happened, and initiate a proceedings just alike, in the case of Anti-Trust, IP Infringements, For or Not For Profit cases, and set an example to remain relevant in the media!

Am I missing something! 😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi

Patents AND Copyrights Offices Should Formulate Some Rules On Inventions OR Literary OR Dramatic Works Generated By AI, That Are Filed By Individuals / Companies As Inventors OR Authors!

 

I am not against the AI generated work. I am merely against who should be considered as the Original Proprietor / Author / Inventor of the work generated by AI! So far, there’re no guidelines whatsoever have been issued by the concerned offices, that if the work is generated by AI, then, the Author or the Inventor or the Applicant or the Owner, shall submit an UNDERTAKING clearly mentioning that they are merely the Owners or Applicants of the AI generated work, and not the Authors or Inventors; and then, such applications should be Accepted on “AS IS” basis work, clearly writing the same details.

The Social Media Usage May Now Be Considered As Equivalent To Smoking! Can Its Usage Be Banned At Public Places If Used Without Headphones? YES!

 

United Airlines has banned the use of mobile phones playing audio/video contents without Headphones. Should have been done by every Airline, Railways, Bus Transportation System etc. long back. Not only them, but playing audio-video contents on mobile phones at public places without headphones should also be banned at Coffee Shops, Restaurants, Public Places. People playing YouTube Reels, Videos, Instagram blabbering, at public places without using Headphones, anticipate that the person sitting or standing next to him/her would also enjoy their brain rot, or, 24/7 commentary videos. And as you cannot argue, you end up vacating that seat or place only.

You won’t believe, and in my earlier blogs also wherein I’ve shared the screenshots, almost a decade or less back, whereas Tweets or Emails that I had sent to these Social Media Platforms viz. Twitter, YouTube, Playstore etc. And I indirectly specifically solicited them to either make them Subscription Based, or, make User Registration Compulsory & Mandatory, and not further to arbitrarily assign these Blue Checks which they were doing since the year 2014-15; rather, make it Pay Per User based, the policy which was eventually implemented in 2022 by Elon Musk. Alas, it was already too late to do that! I also indirectly solicited for YouTube to stop their ridiculous Monetisation programs, rather, monetize it either vide Ads, or, Subscription based, leaving on the Prerogatives of the Content Creator!  Yet, they monetised even the Clickbaits, 24/7 News Blabbering & Commentaries. But then I realized one thing -> Maybe, these owners and employees of social media since 2005, wanted to recreate their own nostalgia of childhood what they always wanted to spread on the Internet. And when they got the funding from the similar behaviour & traits driven Private Equities or Angel Investors, they got & created what they wanted.

What the Australian Government did last year by banning it for the under 16, or, what now different governments are pondering to introduce mandatory KYC features for Social Media Platforms; which you won’t even believe I already wrote and published in my Blogs,  long-long back, shared even the screenshots, as early as 2013; and also shared with them! Yet, their childhood nostalgia thrived on the Internet!

Take this algorithm anomaly. I mostly watched Cats related videos on YouTube, or, listen to some music. Yet, my home screen would pop-up the listed category contents that I haven’t even ever watched, unrelated to the contents I watch, out of nowhere! How? And due to such many reasons, I unsubscribed!

So, coming back to the Topic! After this decision that the Social Media platforms are addictive, can it be used to stop USERs playing the audio/videos contents’ without headphones at the Pubic Places? The answer is -> Yes! And that must happen at the earliest!

Am I missing something?😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi