Yeah me and the Harvard Business Review are wrong about existing precdent because you have very strong feelings.
Guess the SAG strike should end then, since this is all settled!
Fun fact: by your current interpretation, since movie companies own the likeness of characters within movies, they can reuse those characters, and potentially even those actors in some instances (since they can claim they are representative of similar archetypes) forever and the movie stars don’t need to get paid. Writers are flat fucked so long as the studios train AI on prior scripts they own.
As I said, you’re conflating two different things that aren’t the same because you don’t understand the law despite it having been explained to you repeatedly. Now you’re devolving into straw men fallacies and ad hominem personal attacks because your arguments have failed over and over.
Since you’re clearly incapable of having a rational, adult discussion, I’m gonna leave it here. Have a nice day.
You don’t know what ad hominem means if you think I’ve attacked you at all. Idk what you think a straw man is, but maybe just leave those words for another day when you know what they mean.
Your points are wrong on their own merit, and you have no case law to back you up. Quite the opposite.
Yeah me and the Harvard Business Review are wrong about existing precdent because you have very strong feelings.
Guess the SAG strike should end then, since this is all settled!
Fun fact: by your current interpretation, since movie companies own the likeness of characters within movies, they can reuse those characters, and potentially even those actors in some instances (since they can claim they are representative of similar archetypes) forever and the movie stars don’t need to get paid. Writers are flat fucked so long as the studios train AI on prior scripts they own.
This is why semantics are important in law.
As I said, you’re conflating two different things that aren’t the same because you don’t understand the law despite it having been explained to you repeatedly. Now you’re devolving into straw men fallacies and ad hominem personal attacks because your arguments have failed over and over.
Since you’re clearly incapable of having a rational, adult discussion, I’m gonna leave it here. Have a nice day.
You don’t know what ad hominem means if you think I’ve attacked you at all. Idk what you think a straw man is, but maybe just leave those words for another day when you know what they mean.
Your points are wrong on their own merit, and you have no case law to back you up. Quite the opposite.
Your “nuh uh” arguments are as ineffective here as they would be in your pretend court scenario.
Again, I say, good day, sir