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…
While I agree with you, it's much more invasive than a superimposed face on a still image. A photograph of something is open to interpretation or dispute, but a video is a series of such stills, each one slightly different, each of which adds to the provenance of the whole.
Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities
61–70 of 88 posts
Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities
#62I'm on the fence on this one. If I draw a stick figure and put your name above it, is that unethical? What if I add a speech bubble saying something risqué? What if I'm a talented artist and I draw something pretty life-like? I don't see the lines here being too clear without claiming down on all expression.
Here's why:
1. r/deepfake exists, draws novelty, and has appeal in part because it's explicitly identified as fake. It's part of the name. So there's not only any claim to it being real, it's explicitly identified as fake. It's hard to argue how there's any nonconsensual anything when the parties involved in the deepfake porn all agree and understand it's fake.
2. Let's say that someone posts deepfake porn as real porn. Now this is a different issue, one closer to liable. But that's where there's some misattribution of something to the potential victim. The victimization is from the assertion that it is about the individual (as opposed to a deepfake creation, where the opposite is being asserted).
3. Let's say that, out of curiosity, you, in the privacy of your own home, on your own hardware, create deepfake porn involving your spouse (who fully consents and wants you to do so because it's arousing to them) and publicly available imagery. You do not distribute it. By the "nonconsensual porn" logic, though, you have now engaged in something akin to sexual assault, by engaging in nonconsensual photography. But this is absurd, because the public figure has suffered nothing, and nothing was obtained from them without their consent. It's your (and your spouses') creation.
4. Let's take this a step further, and say that a year from now you create software that will create a simulation of a person solely from its knowledge of what humans look like. Let's say that you obtain something that looks like a celebrity. Have you now created nonconsensual photography?
5. Let's say you find a person who is the doppleganger of a celebrity--a dead-ringer lookalike. You film them in porn. (This has been done actually.) Is that nonconsensual porn, because the celebritie's likeness is being used without their consent? The porn actors/actresses consented, though--why is deepfake any different, when there's nothing to consent? Why do you need porn actors/actresses consent to supercede the celebrities whose likeness they resemble?
The logic behind this reddit (and pornhub, etc.) decision is full of holes as far as I'm concerned, and it creates a very dangerous precedent concerning consent. It essentially gives people power over others' likenesses due to their popularity.
Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities
#63Looks like voat.com/v/deepfakes has already existed for while in anticipation.
Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And post them online. Mass redistribution of somebody image is not a "right".
Luckily in the free world we don't need "rights" in order to do things. In third world countries people are often put in prison for photoshoping their leaders. Hopefully this trend towards that kind of authoritarianism doesn't continue in the west.
Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities
#65Looks 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.
These ideas basically self-select fringe groups.
Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities
#66Looks like voat.com/v/deepfakes has already existed for while in anticipation.
To me it looks like voat is just the ulta-toxic communities from reddit joined together. I am a fan of real free speech without banning stuff that could offend some people, yet voat does not feel like a solution for that (same goes for Gab, seems like people there are more interested to see Twitter fail than coming together as a community and create a viable environment). That said, I think this will again drive some…
I long for the olden days when bbs allowed for lots of diverse stuff without people being banned for mentioning a leaked game of throne episode, or cgi boob.
Right now, I feel similarly toward Reddit as Google- moving in an anti-user direction, but no viable alternative to quit to.
Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities
#67Earlier 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…
Maybe, maybe not. Transforming generally creates a derivative work. On its face that requires permission from the owner of the copyright of the work, but there may be exception that allows it in particular cases. In the case of parody in particular, it MAY be covered by fair use.
A lot of people on the net think that parody is automatically fair use, usually from misunderstanding the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) case.
Briefly, in the case, the district court said that parody was fair use. The appeals court said because it was commercial parody it presumptively could not be fair use.
The Supreme Court said they were both wrong, and it might be parody and sent the case back down to the lower courts.
A lot of people just looked at as the Supreme Court reversing the appellate court's reversing of the district court's ruling that parody was fair use, and took it as therefore the Supreme Court saying parody was fair use. (I don't blame people for misunderstanding--the press is generally terrible at reporting Supreme Court decisions. They often fail to interpret Supreme Court rulings in the context of the lower court decisions that led to the case).
Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities
#68Fake 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…
I'm sure if you would ask the people in those fakes they had a problem with it from the beginning. "It has always been a thing" isn't an argument for something.
Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's probably that most people hate the idea of making fake porns of people who don't want to be in porns, and if one likes to pursue that idea, the companies they can find will also harbor other crazy ideas. These ideas basically self-select fringe groups.