With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube
1–10 of 219 posts
Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube
#2https://www.descript.com/ and Lyrebird prevent people from making copies of voices that arent their own, but it looks like that cat is out of the bag.
Abuse potential notwithstanding, and ignoring the complete distortion of "reality" coming soon, I'm extremely excited for this technology to become more mainstream. Being able to edit audio and video, like you edit a word document. Record a conversation for a couple hours, compile the transcript, and synthesize it into something tight, all without the need for a traditional video editor. Voice synthesis for words that werent spoken, or misspoken, frame interpolation and morphing to prevent the jaggy youtube cutting effect.
Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube
#3Isn't parodies are explicitly excluded from requiring to hold copyright to an object of a parody?
Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube
#4Isn't parodies are explicitly excluded from requiring to hold copyright to an object of a parody?
Its a little tricky.. Even Weird Al gets the original artist's permission.
"(Technically, a parodist does not need permission, but it is a legal gray area, and Weird Al prefers to have every artist in on the joke.)" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/09/magazine/weird-al-yankovi...
edit: the tricky pit is defining parody.
Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube
#5Bette Midler sued ford back in the day (1988) for hiring an impersonator to sing on an ad and won. (Of course it helped that Ford asked her to sing first)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
"The appellate court ruled that the voice of someone famous as a singer is distinctive to their person and image and therefore, as a part of their identity, it is unlawful to imitate their voice without express consent and approval. The appellate court reversed the district courts decision and ruled in favor of Midler, indicating her voice was protected against unauthorized use.[4][5]"
I was actually a little surprised. And this is different, but I think that they're imitating a famous voice (as opposed to my voice...) means they become a target.
The fact you can fake anyone saying anything is little amazing. though there are people who can do it quite well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Robert_Thompson
Thompson's Arnold Schwarzenegger impression first gained national attention during the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003. Posing as Schwarzenegger, Thompson phoned in to Fox News Channel's morning program, Fox & Friends, fooling the hosts into believing (at least for a short while) that he was, in fact, Schwarzenegger.[4]
Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube
#6Isn't parodies are explicitly excluded from requiring to hold copyright to an object of a parody?
Its a little tricky.. Even Weird Al gets the original artist's permission. "(Technically, a parodist does not need permission, but it is a legal gray area, and Weird Al prefers to have every artist in on the joke.)" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/09/magazine/weird-al-yankovi... edit: the tricky pit is defining parody.
>Its a little tricky.. Even Weird Al gets the original artist's permission.
Weird Al's preferences don't add any strength [evidence] to any argument regarding the legality.
Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube
#7Isn't parodies are explicitly excluded from requiring to hold copyright to an object of a parody?
Fair use is decided on a case by case basis if the owner wants to take it to court, and each time you get a new bite at the apple!
Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube
#8Bette Midler sued ford back in the day (1988) for hiring an impersonator to sing on an ad and won. (Of course it helped that Ford asked her to sing first) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co . "The appellate court ruled that the voice of someone famous as a singer is distinctive to their person and image and therefore, as a part of their identity, it is unlawful to imitate their voice without expres…
Very important to note that the Midler case has very narrow interpretation. From the Opinion:
> We need not and do not go so far as to hold that every imitation of a voice to advertise merchandise is actionable. We hold only that when a distinctive voice of a professional singer is widely known and is deliberately imitated in order to sell a product, the sellers have appropriated what is not theirs and have committed a tort in California.
Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube
#9Bette Midler sued ford back in the day (1988) for hiring an impersonator to sing on an ad and won. (Of course it helped that Ford asked her to sing first) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co . "The appellate court ruled that the voice of someone famous as a singer is distinctive to their person and image and therefore, as a part of their identity, it is unlawful to imitate their voice without expres…
> The appellate court ruled that the voice of someone famous as a singer is distinctive to their person and image and therefore, as a part of their identity, it is unlawful to imitate their voice without express consent and approval
So it's illegal to imitate a famous person, but not a regular Joe?
We certainly are all equal, except those who are more equal of course.
Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube
#10Bette Midler sued ford back in the day (1988) for hiring an impersonator to sing on an ad and won. (Of course it helped that Ford asked her to sing first) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co . "The appellate court ruled that the voice of someone famous as a singer is distinctive to their person and image and therefore, as a part of their identity, it is unlawful to imitate their voice without expres…
Then how are Elvis impersonators not a copyright violation?