If you watched Saturday Night Live this weekend, or know about Father John Misty’s new song titled Total Entertainment Forever, you may have noticed the first line of the song goes something like this:
“Bedding Taylor Swift every night inside the Oculus Rift/After mister and the missus finish dinner and the dishes”
These scenarios, like being able to have virtual-reality sex with celebrities, are just entering the mainstream minds. Songs like this, TV shows like Westworld, and movies like Her are introducing these concepts and ideas to the general public. This is leading to some very interesting discourse, and questions when it comes to the legal and ethical implications of being able to have virtual-reality sex with whomever once chooses.
Is it wrong to have virtual reality sex with Taylor Swift?
To start, there are two possible scenarios:
- Taylor Swift gave permission for VR software developers to create a VR sex experience in her likeness.
- Taylor Swift did not give permission to create a VR sex experience in her likeness.
For scenario 1, we don’t really need to debate. If Taylor Swift gave permission for someone to build a virtual reality sex experience and sell it to the general public, that is her decision and is certainly legal. Here at sexrobotinformer.com we sincerely hope that this is the scenario that comes true.
Scenario 2 is the controversial one.
Say a VR designer makes an experience where the girl looks and sounds exactly like Taylor Swift, which then allows him to sell many copies of the software for profit. Would Taylor Swift have a case to sue this VR designer?
Or, another example, say I order a custom sex doll from siliconwives.com to look exactly like my favorite porn star (early 2000s Tori Black). Would Tori Black have an recourse to sue me or the sex doll company?
As many of us know, the famous rule 34 of the internet states:
If something exists, there is pornography of it
So it is just a matter of time before we start seeing celebrities in VR software or celebrity sex dolls.
What does the law state now?
When questioned by Wired Magazine on the topic, Ryan Calo, Law Professor at the University of Washington had the following to say:
The major issue was that the doll “being animate all of a sudden for some reason feels too invasive.
Calo’s concern is, rightfully so, for the owner of the face. If using a face causes personal harm to a person — regardless of how we choose to define “harm” — then we should seriously consider designing protective laws.
Some of these laws already exist, but they seem like they were primarily designed to prevent the individual from missing out on the profit another person could gain from using their face. “If someone were to gain commercially in almost any way from this, and even arguably the notoriety he has gained from this, the celebrity could almost certainly sue him,” he continued in his interview. There’s a precedent for celebrities like Vanna White and a pair of actors from Cheers successfully suing people for creating robots that resembled them and using them for profit, which Calo outlined in a 2016 paper.
Bottomline: Currently there needs to be some proof of profit before a celebrity could have grounds to sue or issue a “cease and desist” order.
Where is the law headed?
The law will most likely maintain that copying someone’s likeness for profit is not legal. The law may even get more restrictive due to ethical concerns. The concern being that, even if for personal use only, once a celebrities likeness becomes an animated sex object, and perhaps even a semi-intelligent being, it crosses some sort of ethical line and will be illegal.
We will most likely see this industry controlled by celebrities licensing the ability for designers to create VR sex and sex dolls in their likeness in exchange for royalties on all sales.
Spring 2019 update: As predicted we are seeing many celebrity sex dolls, both licensed and non-licensed, hit the market. For a list of these new releases please see this great article from SexDoll.com titled Celebrity and Pornstar Sex Dolls.
source: www.inverse.com
Leave a Reply