Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 88 posts

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#51

Post by gamblor956 »

yakitori wrote: post #40
codingdave wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people are still 100% within their rights to combine images legally obtained in this way. And post them online. Are they? If you distribute movies and media to the public, you normally are breaking laws. (Hence the infamous FBI warning on movies for a couple decades now.) Likewise, you cannot just use people's likeness in marketing and other public uses without their permission. So I'm not at all sure that just bec…

> Are they? Yes. > If you distribute movies and media to the public, you normally are breaking laws. That's not what we are talking about. You can transform any public image for parody, criticism, etc. Porn is considered speech so anyone can make pornographic parodies/etc. This is especially true if fans are doing so for fun and not for profit. Of course reddit has a right to ban it from their platform, but you as a…

That's not what we are talking about. You can transform any public image for parody, criticism, etc. Porn is considered speech so anyone can make pornographic parodies/etc.

This is true. It's not censorable free speech, meaning the government can't prohibit it ahead of time. But speech can be subject to tort claims despite surviving the First Amendment. A deepfake victim can sue for damages in civil courts, and there's a 99.99999% chance they'd win massive damages every time.

This is especially true if fans are doing so for fun and not for profit

Profit motive may affect the amount of damages, but it doesn't effect whether or not the victim can sue and win in a court of law. Even in the US, you'd be paying out significant damages to someone for damage to reputation or use of likeness.

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#52

Post by greymeister »

randyrand wrote: post #11

Looks like voat.com/v/deepfakes has already existed for while in anticipation.

It's telling that other replies to this were a (justifiable) critique of the voat community. Another example of an effect of giant centralized communities (social networks) dominating online discussion. When one of them decides some content isn't acceptable, there are only fringe alternatives out in the Internet wilderness.

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#53

Post by gamblor956 »

falcolas wrote: post #27
NegativeK wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you honestly think that using someone else's copywritten material to transform yet another person's likeness into something that very few people would consent to (when you almost certainly didn't try to get consent) is a fair use right, legally or socially?

Well, it is definitely transformative. In fact, nothing of the original work really survives the transformation. You can't merely copyright your likeness. As for socially, consider this: They have used the likeness of Bruce Lee, Carrie Fischer, Prince, and Peter Cushing in commercial works, undoubtedly without prior consent. We also have "public" nude photos taken and distributed of celebrities on a regular basis (pa…

They have used the likeness of Bruce Lee, Carrie Fischer, Prince, and Peter Cushing in commercial works, undoubtedly without prior consent.

They licensed their likenesses from their estate, or used licensed footage (i.e., film clips of Bruce Lee).

We also have "public" nude photos taken and distributed of celebrities on a regular basis (paparazzi).

Photos taken in public are not subject to the same tort concerns as private photos, or faked photos purporting to be of a celebrity.

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#54

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

excalibur wrote: post #13

Fake porn of celebrities has been prevalent on the Internet for a long time. I don't have precise statistics, but I think it might predate the web. For the most part it hasn't been particularly controversial. Now that advances in technology have significantly improved the quality, everybody suddenly has a problem with it. Let's back this up a few steps. You're an actor, you appear on television. By being filmed and a…

>> But what if somebody finds you attractive, and looks at your picture whilst... you know. Can you sue? No, they're well within their rights to do so. What if they cut your face out and place it over a Playboy centerfold? Same deal. Several technogical innovations later, here we are. Fundamentally, nothing has changed.

How did we go from "somone masturbates over a collage of your face over a picture on a magazine" (presumably, in the privacy of their own home) to "someone posts fake porn of you on the internet for all to see"?

That's not a matter of "technological innovations". It's a matter of a gross violation of your dignity, an insult to your personality performed in public and with the express intention to humiliate you in front of the widest audience possible.

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#55

Post by gamblor956 »

flukus wrote: post #38
ordinaryradical wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely true, and not that you’re arguing for this but: Just because the technology is out there doesnt mean we throw our hands in the air and give up. Yes it’s there, it’s going to be used for most of the nefarious cases we can imagine, but that doesn’t mean we have to tolerate someone using our image against our will. In fact, I would imagine that the data privacy advocates I often see on hn should see this as a…

> In fact, I would imagine that the data privacy advocates I often see on hn should see this as a logical extension of the privacy protections they want to see across the web. The question is whether or not my likeness is my data, which I don't think has ever been settled. Anyone can take a photo of me in public and the photographer owns the copyright. Are security cameras recording me violating my privacy? On the ot…

The photographer owns the copyright in the photo, but not the right to use your likeness contained in the photo without your permission (likeness rights are also referred to as model rights).

This means that you can demand money if the photographer sells that photo to anyone, especially if the sale is for commercial use.

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#56

Post by danso »

flukus wrote: post #38
ordinaryradical wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely true, and not that you’re arguing for this but: Just because the technology is out there doesnt mean we throw our hands in the air and give up. Yes it’s there, it’s going to be used for most of the nefarious cases we can imagine, but that doesn’t mean we have to tolerate someone using our image against our will. In fact, I would imagine that the data privacy advocates I often see on hn should see this as a…

> In fact, I would imagine that the data privacy advocates I often see on hn should see this as a logical extension of the privacy protections they want to see across the web. The question is whether or not my likeness is my data, which I don't think has ever been settled. Anyone can take a photo of me in public and the photographer owns the copyright. Are security cameras recording me violating my privacy? On the ot…

Yes, the photographer owns the photo. They do not own your likeness or have the right to use it as they wish unless you signed a model contract with them.

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#57

Post by gamblor956 »

bradbeattie wrote: post #30
FLUX-YOU wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of these examples are really anywhere close to deepfake porn videos. - Porn is done under consent, where participants should be reasonably aware that it will be published - Porn tarnishes reputations If you pasted Daisy Ridley's face in a crowd in, say, China, doing every day stuff, no one would rightly care because there's no real potential unless you are doing it for some ulterior motive.

I think how convincing a piece of media may be is at the crux of this issue. Photoshopped heads of celebrities on porn actors' bodies have been around for some time now and isn't, to my knowledge, illegal. The key difference here is that people hold video to be more trustworthy. Given the advancements in CG and now more recently with deep fakes, perhaps that's what needs to change; People should stop trusting video f…

Photoshopped heads of celebrities on porn actors' bodies have been around for some time now and isn't, to my knowledge, illegal

They have been, since inception, illegal, in the sense that they represent a tortious act. They might be illegal in the criminal sense, depending on the jurisdiction, even in the US if absent meaningful context bringing the fake under the protection of the First Amendment as a form of speech.

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#58

Post by autokad »

ordinaryradical wrote: post #22
autokad wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i am on the fence. using my face, and making money off it without my permission seems wrong. however, what if the 'animated' porn star just happens to look like me? inevitably, a generated porn star will look like SOMEONE. for me, this is getting murky. then there is the case that the program generates porn for me. if i privately generate porn using a famous person's image, to me - thats my right. no different than m…

Just to clarify the conundrum in your second paragraph: this is definitively privileging your privacy over someone else’s. What you do in private is your business, yes, but that doesn’t give you the right to be a voyeur simply because you are doing so in seclusion. That’s why I think this is a poor argument.

voyeur: "a person who gains sexual pleasure from watching others when they are naked or engaged in sexual activity." is not illegal. its kinda the very definition of watching porn.

i wouldnt be violating their privacy any more than taping a picture to a pillow and humping it. are you claiming that is illegal? if not, then it feels like its the quality of the 'content' you are against, not the act.

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#59

Post by drusepth »

ordinaryradical wrote: post #22
autokad wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i am on the fence. using my face, and making money off it without my permission seems wrong. however, what if the 'animated' porn star just happens to look like me? inevitably, a generated porn star will look like SOMEONE. for me, this is getting murky. then there is the case that the program generates porn for me. if i privately generate porn using a famous person's image, to me - thats my right. no different than m…

Just to clarify the conundrum in your second paragraph: this is definitively privileging your privacy over someone else’s. What you do in private is your business, yes, but that doesn’t give you the right to be a voyeur simply because you are doing so in seclusion. That’s why I think this is a poor argument.

Would you make that same argument toward someone fantasizing about someone in their mind? The two seem parallel to me; I would guess most people are either morally for or against both (even though, yes, one is way more extreme than the other), but I'm super curious about whether/why someone might think e.g. imagination is fine but private visualizations aren't (or vice versa).

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#60

Post by gamblor956 »

autokad wrote: post #58
ordinaryradical wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to clarify the conundrum in your second paragraph: this is definitively privileging your privacy over someone else’s. What you do in private is your business, yes, but that doesn’t give you the right to be a voyeur simply because you are doing so in seclusion. That’s why I think this is a poor argument.

voyeur: "a person who gains sexual pleasure from watching others when they are naked or engaged in sexual activity." is not illegal. its kinda the very definition of watching porn. i wouldnt be violating their privacy any more than taping a picture to a pillow and humping it. are you claiming that is illegal? if not, then it feels like its the quality of the 'content' you are against, not the act.

Porn is consensual. Non-consensual voyeurism is usually a crime. (Generally turns on the expectation of privacy. If the watcher is observing from a non-publicly accessible location, they're probably guilty of voyeurism. Watching people go at it in a hotel room from the office across the street, generally wouldn't be a crime. Watching a non-consenual video recording generally wouldn't be a criminal act for the observer but would be a criminal act by the recorder, but this also depends on the content of the recording.)
Post reply on HN