Who owns Einstein? The battle for the world’s most famous face(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Who owns Einstein? The battle for the world’s most famous face
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/may/17/who-owns-einstein-the-battle-for-the-worlds-most-famous-face
69 comments
Turns out, everyone is able to see a connection between a protracted legal battle with a known litigious hound with deep pockets and success on this front. So they all settle or buy the license. The litigious entity gets their way.
Like the guy who claims he invented email?
He lies, you write an article about it, he sues you to death and you settle.
He lies, you write an article about it, he sues you to death and you settle.
Likewise, mathematical formulae are specifically excluded from copyright law, so I'm wondering how this ever got off the ground. If he won according to actual law and not misjudgment then there's something inconsistent with the law and it ought to be rectified.
At least with patents there's an argument to be made that patents are a public good because they encourage disclosure of inventions by their inventors.
Copyright can similarly be argued to benefit the public by encouraging creators to create.
But how does the public benefit from enforcing publicity rights?
Copyright can similarly be argued to benefit the public by encouraging creators to create.
But how does the public benefit from enforcing publicity rights?
"If we don't enforce publicity rights, what incentive will people have to gain renown?"
It's wild how nobody wrote or invented anything prior to the rise of intellectual property.
It's wild how nobody wrote or invented anything prior to the rise of intellectual property.
Or had a face.
The public benefit is that if you see a person's name or likeness used to promote a product, the public knows that the person (or their estate) consented to the use. Without publicity rights, anyone could use anyone else's name or likeness to sell anything.
"...anyone could use anyone else's name or likeness to sell anything."
So what, why does it matter as long as the person is dead and there's no deception or pretense that they are directly associated with or are related to the said famous person?
Essentially, the situation exists now, every newborn John Brown has appropriated the name of someone who's already died (and as we know at least one person with that name is already famous).
BTW, Einstein isn't that an uncommon name, I've even met a person with that name who wasn't related to the physicist.
So what, why does it matter as long as the person is dead and there's no deception or pretense that they are directly associated with or are related to the said famous person?
Essentially, the situation exists now, every newborn John Brown has appropriated the name of someone who's already died (and as we know at least one person with that name is already famous).
BTW, Einstein isn't that an uncommon name, I've even met a person with that name who wasn't related to the physicist.
[deleted]
You appear to be still describing the estate's benefit, not the public's.
> Who owns Einstein? The battle for the world’s most famous face (theguardian.com)
Lawyers!
Lawyers!
There's also a battle over who own Tesla. The point of contention is over whether he was Croatian or Serbian.
Wasn’t he American?
He was ethnically Serbian, was born in (what is now) Croatia, moved to the United States in his late 20s, and gained his United States citizenship in his mid-30s.
You could argue he was Austrian, because Croatia was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the time and he attended the University of Graz, Austria. I guess many people would like to call him a fellow countryman.
He died 67 years ago, nobody deserves to own his image.
Exactly, if the duration of these rights continue to escalate as they have with copyrights, performance rights and patents, then where will it end?
How long will it be before we're forced to pay to have an image or likeness of Plato or Aristotle on the cover of a book?
The identities of these people are already owned by the public - hence the existing interest in them - and are thus already in the public domain.
As I see it, that vested interests can corrupt the democratic process by having laws introduced that would remove information that's already in the public domain for their own benefit is, of itself, antidemocratic.
How long will it be before we're forced to pay to have an image or likeness of Plato or Aristotle on the cover of a book?
The identities of these people are already owned by the public - hence the existing interest in them - and are thus already in the public domain.
As I see it, that vested interests can corrupt the democratic process by having laws introduced that would remove information that's already in the public domain for their own benefit is, of itself, antidemocratic.
I don’t think likeness rights should outlive a person. I can leave assets to my children but why should they have any right to my face? They didn’t create my face, my parents did.
Not the world's most famous face by any means. Not a battle either.
As close as it gets to being an objectively clickbait title.
As close as it gets to being an objectively clickbait title.
It’s probably impossible to figure out who the worlds most famous face is but given that constraint we can still do a thought experiment on who we think the worlds most famous face would be. I would pick Jesus but it’s questionable if he was even real and what he looked like if he wa. So going with faces we can be certain of, Einstein seems like a solid pick. Maybe Mona Lisa if the portrait counts.
Einstein is more famous than Jesus and Mona Lisa.
40% of the world population are from India and China (a Non-Jesus country).
Kids at a very young age are introduced to Einstein in pretty much every school. Mona Lisa not so much.
In fact, growing up, I didn't know about Mona Lisa till about age 20
40% of the world population are from India and China (a Non-Jesus country).
Kids at a very young age are introduced to Einstein in pretty much every school. Mona Lisa not so much.
In fact, growing up, I didn't know about Mona Lisa till about age 20
A lot of non Christians know about Jesus. There are millions of illiterate and uneducated people who don't know about Einstein but are aware of Jesus. So I'd wager on Jesus.
But Jesus’ face? I don’t think anyone today ‘knows’ what he looked like.
There are many Christians in India and in China.
The Bible is the best selling book of all time. I'm certain that Jesus is more popular than Einstein. Not that care, but your post is not factual.
The Bible is the best selling book of all time. I'm certain that Jesus is more popular than Einstein. Not that care, but your post is not factual.
> Einstein is more famous than Jesus and Mona Lisa.
Also, we have very few photos of Jesus or the subject of the Mona Lisa.
Also, we have very few photos of Jesus or the subject of the Mona Lisa.
You gotta be able to trust Da Vinci with his rendition of Mona Lisa, and for that matter, The Light of the World, about Jesus. So there is some stuff we know from different places about Iesus Nazareni Rex Iudaeorum, like that for instance he had hair like his FATHER, (Matthew KJV you cannot put one hair back on your head, paraphrased, which was a reference to Jesus having a full head of hair). Unlike Julius Caesar.
Plus you have iconoclastism. It is specifically forbidden in the Bible to make images of GOD, it was just done anyway after a war over that.
Plus you have iconoclastism. It is specifically forbidden in the Bible to make images of GOD, it was just done anyway after a war over that.
Washington, Lincoln, or the Queen, due to currency. Maybe Mao for similar reasons.
That's very US centric comment. I would need to think deep to picture Washington.
I tell you what - it's the face of the most advertised person. Currency is not used for advertising.
So out of three, it's easiest to recollect Lincoln with stove top with US flag and pointing finger. Her majesty comes second because all the memes of her longevity.
The most recognisable? Certain Hollywood actors. Period.
I tell you what - it's the face of the most advertised person. Currency is not used for advertising.
So out of three, it's easiest to recollect Lincoln with stove top with US flag and pointing finger. Her majesty comes second because all the memes of her longevity.
The most recognisable? Certain Hollywood actors. Period.
Washington? I don’t know for sure what he looks like, feels quite US specific. But for some reason Lincoln I do know.
I would guess the “Mona Lisa”. Or maybe actors in popular films like Robert Downey Jr.
I would guess the “Mona Lisa”. Or maybe actors in popular films like Robert Downey Jr.
> Washington, Lincoln, or the Queen
How are those gonna do inside that surprisingly-small circle you can draw over Asia and Oceania that contains half the world's population? How about all of Africa?
Whichever face it is, it's probably recognizable to both Indians and Chinese people.
I wouldn't be surprised the winner's a well-known bodhisattva. Though that opens up the question of whether it has to be a photo, and if not, the Lisa Gherardini might be a real contender (though possibly disqualified, since that identification isn't 100% certain).
How are those gonna do inside that surprisingly-small circle you can draw over Asia and Oceania that contains half the world's population? How about all of Africa?
Whichever face it is, it's probably recognizable to both Indians and Chinese people.
I wouldn't be surprised the winner's a well-known bodhisattva. Though that opens up the question of whether it has to be a photo, and if not, the Lisa Gherardini might be a real contender (though possibly disqualified, since that identification isn't 100% certain).
Like a third of Africa is in the Commonwealth, as is India and much of Oceania.
Maybe I've read too many articles about US currency being used across the world. That said, I've seen a surprising amount of foreign programs reference Lincoln's image. Considering there are hundreds of billions of pennies in existence I suspect he's more well known than you'd think, even though they primarily are in the US.
Maybe I've read too many articles about US currency being used across the world. That said, I've seen a surprising amount of foreign programs reference Lincoln's image. Considering there are hundreds of billions of pennies in existence I suspect he's more well known than you'd think, even though they primarily are in the US.
I have no idea what Washington and Lincoln look like, and suspect the vast majority of people in the world also don't, and probably haven't heard of them.
Would be Iron man or Spiderman, recent and popular across the world.
Close, it's Buddha.
If you asked everyone in the world to draw Trump's face and Einstein's face I bet you more people would draw Trump more accurately. But both have crazy hair so maybe it would be a toss up.
Also Hitler or Donald Trump
I would say this has >50% chance of being the right answer. I would also treat Gandhi, Mao, Che, and a few 'celebrities' like Cristiano Ronaldo and Leonardo DiCaprio as contenders.
+++By this point it is in fact Donald Trump. Hitler was famous once, not anymore, people don't connect with the Holocaust and WW2 like they did in the 90's. If you're born after 2000 it might as well be the Napoleonic Wars, some stuff that was on the test and nothing more. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. But now it's Trump. Because of all the bad press. There was a slowdown in the media markets when he left the presidency because they were talking about him or his administrations in the majority of headlines. I judge 65% of big headlines were about him or his administration. Well you can't look at it objectively, it's different for every news source. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ I'm going to swear this comment cryptographically, like I did in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31451260. Nonce: 27965+++
EDIT: I'm having difficulty working with HN, especially puncuation modifications, it's tricky to copy paste into eg https://geraintluff.github.io/sha256/
To get that oath, hash that message as ASCII, everything between the triple +'s, "+++". Keep those out. You must get
0002a29ee3e809d4dcf5adc2bc1fc7ed61a10a01efc37eb2207bdad9193b1ebf
But copy the string into the console, not in the entry. This is currently not an easy process.
EDIT: I'm having difficulty working with HN, especially puncuation modifications, it's tricky to copy paste into eg https://geraintluff.github.io/sha256/
To get that oath, hash that message as ASCII, everything between the triple +'s, "+++". Keep those out. You must get
0002a29ee3e809d4dcf5adc2bc1fc7ed61a10a01efc37eb2207bdad9193b1ebf
But copy the string into the console, not in the entry. This is currently not an easy process.
Who is the world's most famous face then? Hitler? Mona Lisa? Michael Jackson? Hide the Pain Harold?
I would bet there's a large number of people who know Harold more than the others :)
I would have said Ghandi... though polling suggests it's actually Queen Elizabeth II.
That's interesting. Her face is on a lot of paper currency, I'm sure that contributes to her recognition.
That was originally the way money equalled fame. Also time in many monarchies was tied to the biography of the monarch. In Japan it was so, the Meiji period. In Matthew Mark Luke and John, KJV.
I was thinking Marilyn Monroe.
The smiley face.
:)
:)
It's crazy how much energy is spent trying to constrain free information flow.
[deleted]
If you read the article it is certainly more nuanced.
* The money is going to a Top University.
* There are strict limitations about how the images / brand can be used. I especially like the idea of not mis-quoting and fabricating quotes associated with Einstein.
* The money is going to a Top University.
* There are strict limitations about how the images / brand can be used. I especially like the idea of not mis-quoting and fabricating quotes associated with Einstein.
I find myself unimpressed by this "nuance".
* Does the "Top University" need the cash? Who is it coming from, and who is to say they do not need it more?
* Evidence suggests this has not in practice been prevented.
* Does the "Top University" need the cash? Who is it coming from, and who is to say they do not need it more?
* Evidence suggests this has not in practice been prevented.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/hebrew-university-to-open-acad...
From 2016 - "The university is mired in debt amounting to nearly NIS 13 billion ($3.4 billion) over employees’ pensions."
From 2016 - "The university is mired in debt amounting to nearly NIS 13 billion ($3.4 billion) over employees’ pensions."
Stanford for example costs several billions to run.
I am not clear why a person that lives in India should care about Stanford, when the cost of tutoring 1 person in Stanford can educate 10 people in India.
Especially when it is already so well-funded.
Stanford disproprotinately benefits very elite of an already wealthy nation. That's okay, but purl-clutching like they need every penny is kinda gross.
Especially when it is already so well-funded.
Stanford disproprotinately benefits very elite of an already wealthy nation. That's okay, but purl-clutching like they need every penny is kinda gross.
Actually, Stanford funds the academic portion of the enterprise from the interest off it's endowment.
It is common knowledge that Stanford is really a front for a real estate venture.
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31266464
It is common knowledge that Stanford is really a front for a real estate venture.
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31266464
What's the angle? Who is profiting from this venture?
How much?
(And pro-tip re linked post: ideas carry better without cryptoracist prose.)
(And pro-tip re linked post: ideas carry better without cryptoracist prose.)
I'm sorry, what makes his link racist? The "Old, elite, uber-wealthy white men" comment? As in all of stanfords presidents?
[deleted]
Exactly, it is not just operational cost for 1 year, but Stanford and Hebrew universities have to survive the next 500 years of humanity for the benefit of humanity. No amount of Cash in the Reserve is enough for a 500 year plan
These are top schools with huge endowment funds that act as investment vehicles.
Many of them could theoretically operate indefinitely without ever charging tuition, if the funds were hypothetically allowed to be used in that way.
Someone did some napkin math on this for Harvard on Quora: https://qr.ae/pvAQ7v
Now, this person didn't do a great job accounting for inflation, but I do think a professionally managed endowment can get much better than a 3% return on its investments to cover inflation.
Harvard's endowment is pretty close to the same size as Stanford.
It's really just the small, less prestigious universities that have financial issues [1]. The Stanfords and Harvards of the world don't need any help.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/27/more-colleges-face-bankruptc...
Many of them could theoretically operate indefinitely without ever charging tuition, if the funds were hypothetically allowed to be used in that way.
Someone did some napkin math on this for Harvard on Quora: https://qr.ae/pvAQ7v
Now, this person didn't do a great job accounting for inflation, but I do think a professionally managed endowment can get much better than a 3% return on its investments to cover inflation.
Harvard's endowment is pretty close to the same size as Stanford.
It's really just the small, less prestigious universities that have financial issues [1]. The Stanfords and Harvards of the world don't need any help.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/27/more-colleges-face-bankruptc...
"This person didn't do a great job of accounting for inflation"
Listen to yourself. This is like saying "we have a perfect earthquake prediction model, except it doesn't predict certain types of earthquakes"
This comment along with the massive down-votes that my posts have received proves that a majority of HN is absolutely clueless about running businesses and I'm glad for that
Listen to yourself. This is like saying "we have a perfect earthquake prediction model, except it doesn't predict certain types of earthquakes"
This comment along with the massive down-votes that my posts have received proves that a majority of HN is absolutely clueless about running businesses and I'm glad for that
While the person doing the napkin math didn't account for inflation, they were also wildly conservative in terms of how much of a return endowments can get from their investments, mostly just referencing the 4% rule that's useful for retiring individuals with very low risk tolerance.
They estimated that free tuition for all students would cost 3% per year, but the S&P 500 has returned over 10% yearly over the last 100 years, 7% adjusted for inflation. [1]
This math also assumes that the school never receives another donation ever again, which is quite unlikely.
It should also be obvious that my point isn't that schools should literally run entirely on their endowment. My point is: giving money to a school like Harvard or Stanford isn't really an act of charity at this point, because they are juggernaut institutions that are too big to fail. They don't need to be raking in licensing fees from images and quotes from people who have been dead for decades.
It's also interesting that, in your last sentence, you are implying that HN viewers don't know anything about running a business, but last I checked we were talking about universities. There's a little bit of irony here: my whole argument revolves around the fact that these supposedly "non-profit" educational institutions are acting very much like businesses in ways probably shouldn't be.
In my view, images and text for deceased historical figures like Albert Einstein and Martin Luther King, Jr. should be part of the public domain much sooner than copyright law currently allows so that we can all enjoy and learn from their legacy freely without capitalist incentives.
I think Reddit is a better place to complain about fake Internet points. I highly recommend it!
[1] https://www.officialdata.org/us/stocks/s-p-500/1926
They estimated that free tuition for all students would cost 3% per year, but the S&P 500 has returned over 10% yearly over the last 100 years, 7% adjusted for inflation. [1]
This math also assumes that the school never receives another donation ever again, which is quite unlikely.
It should also be obvious that my point isn't that schools should literally run entirely on their endowment. My point is: giving money to a school like Harvard or Stanford isn't really an act of charity at this point, because they are juggernaut institutions that are too big to fail. They don't need to be raking in licensing fees from images and quotes from people who have been dead for decades.
It's also interesting that, in your last sentence, you are implying that HN viewers don't know anything about running a business, but last I checked we were talking about universities. There's a little bit of irony here: my whole argument revolves around the fact that these supposedly "non-profit" educational institutions are acting very much like businesses in ways probably shouldn't be.
In my view, images and text for deceased historical figures like Albert Einstein and Martin Luther King, Jr. should be part of the public domain much sooner than copyright law currently allows so that we can all enjoy and learn from their legacy freely without capitalist incentives.
I think Reddit is a better place to complain about fake Internet points. I highly recommend it!
[1] https://www.officialdata.org/us/stocks/s-p-500/1926
Stanford releases most of their courses for free for the world to consume and improve their knowledge and help humanity.
It is not about internet points, but the fact that how anti-capitalists the intellectual elites have become despite massively benefiting from it and the single biggest factor that has driven down poverty on a global scale.
No one read the article. It was beautiful well-written. Instead HN, like reddit went all pitch-fork "Hurr Durr, Bad Capitalists"
It is not about internet points, but the fact that how anti-capitalists the intellectual elites have become despite massively benefiting from it and the single biggest factor that has driven down poverty on a global scale.
No one read the article. It was beautiful well-written. Instead HN, like reddit went all pitch-fork "Hurr Durr, Bad Capitalists"
The name-calling ("anti-capitalists," "intellectual elites") seems like an attempt to discredit the healthy practice of investigating or criticizing potentially corrupt practices within our institutions.
Anyone who dares question the status-quo is an "anti-capitalist," a snobby "intellectual elite," or is a very stupid member of a dangerous mob, "hur dur.”
An institution being a net-positive and the institution needing reform and oversight are not mutually exclusive concepts.
I most certainly read the article, and I still don't understand why anyone's allowed to own exclusive rights to profit off of someone who has been dead as long as Albert Einstein. I can’t think of anyone who would benefit from that system besides the rights-holders.
I'll see you over at https://einstein.biz, maybe I'll buy you a t-shirt or a mug.
Anyone who dares question the status-quo is an "anti-capitalist," a snobby "intellectual elite," or is a very stupid member of a dangerous mob, "hur dur.”
An institution being a net-positive and the institution needing reform and oversight are not mutually exclusive concepts.
I most certainly read the article, and I still don't understand why anyone's allowed to own exclusive rights to profit off of someone who has been dead as long as Albert Einstein. I can’t think of anyone who would benefit from that system besides the rights-holders.
I'll see you over at https://einstein.biz, maybe I'll buy you a t-shirt or a mug.
[deleted]
So, they have to spend an inordinate amount of effort constraining the free flow of information, to make money off that information, so that they can ensure the free flow of information into the next millennium?
That doesn't seem that great.
That doesn't seem that great.
That they benefit "humanity" is a dubious claim. They certainly benefit the small club that uses their services.
Well, two flaws.
i) if Einstein had patented his ideas and had left Billions of Dollars to a top university, would it have been ok with you?. To answer your question, Universities are institutions that last centuries. To survive and attract the best in the world for 300 years, there is no limit of cash that such an institution will need (they need to survive economic crashes, world wars, climate catastrophes, pandemics etc)
ii) You don't have counterfactual evidence. There is a difference between mis-quoting in the comment section vs in Billion $$$ Marketing campaigns
i) if Einstein had patented his ideas and had left Billions of Dollars to a top university, would it have been ok with you?. To answer your question, Universities are institutions that last centuries. To survive and attract the best in the world for 300 years, there is no limit of cash that such an institution will need (they need to survive economic crashes, world wars, climate catastrophes, pandemics etc)
ii) You don't have counterfactual evidence. There is a difference between mis-quoting in the comment section vs in Billion $$$ Marketing campaigns
Why should it be illegal to misquote someone who is dead? That doesn't make a lot of intuitive sense to me.
As Abraham Lincoln once said:
"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
Uh oh, time to throw me in jail, right!?
I realize that misinformation can be a powerfully bad thing in this world, but I think there must be better ways to deal with it than turning a dead person's image into a lucrative capitalist enterprise.
Apple gets to use Einstein's image to advertise their products because they could afford to pay the $600,000 fee, but I can't use Einstein's image to promote my business because, sorry, I'm not a worthy enough capitalist.
> The money is going to a Top University.
Oh, that makes it all better! Top Universities (TM) have the unique ability to avoid all issues monetary related to corruption prevalent in other institutions. (/s)
I'm going to guess that this money is going to be spent on things like academics, perhaps the next Einstein will earn $9 million per year to perform groundbreaking research!
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/02/06/congressional-probe-int...
As Abraham Lincoln once said:
"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
Uh oh, time to throw me in jail, right!?
I realize that misinformation can be a powerfully bad thing in this world, but I think there must be better ways to deal with it than turning a dead person's image into a lucrative capitalist enterprise.
Apple gets to use Einstein's image to advertise their products because they could afford to pay the $600,000 fee, but I can't use Einstein's image to promote my business because, sorry, I'm not a worthy enough capitalist.
> The money is going to a Top University.
Oh, that makes it all better! Top Universities (TM) have the unique ability to avoid all issues monetary related to corruption prevalent in other institutions. (/s)
I'm going to guess that this money is going to be spent on things like academics, perhaps the next Einstein will earn $9 million per year to perform groundbreaking research!
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/02/06/congressional-probe-int...
Quite disappointing to see people behave like this.
I'm unable to see the connection between a formula and Einstein's face.