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

With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

waxy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 219 posts

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#51

Post by kauffj »

CEO of LBRY here. These videos are welcome on LBRY.

We'll have to get a real (i.e. not me commenting on HN) legal opinion should we get a take down request, but prima facie I don't see why these would be illegal.

(If they are illegal and we are notified, we would put them on the company maintained blacklist, as we cannot remove anything from the network itself.)

Edit: I wrote a rap on our perspective.

If you're having deep fake problems / I feel bad for you son

We got 99 deep fakes / And Jay-Z ain't taking down one

https://twitter.com/LBRYio/status/1255273319739293703

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#53

Post by HumblyTossed »

acomjean wrote: post #5

Bette 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…

I wonder if Rich Little had to get everyone's permission.

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#54

Post by zucker42 »

AlexanderNull wrote: post #15
css wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Videos on YouTube are selling advertisements so wouldn't this apply here?

Some differences that would probably affect things in court:

1. It's parody. Parody has specific statutory protection.

2. It's clearly labelled as speech synthesis.

3. It doesn't stand in for any of the original works. The market for deep fakes is much different than that for songs or presidential speeches.

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#55

Post by three_seagrass »

sneak wrote: post #41
randylahey wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A YouTuber (carykh) made a video where he explains an algorithm he made to automatically process lecture videos by speeding up, condensing and removing parts of the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ8orIurGxw

https://s.sneak.berlin/@sneak/104054875133518950 I want a YT speed setting for “constant WPM” based on their autocaption timestamp metadata.

Don't let your dreams be dreams. YouTube data API allows downloading captions, and the iframe API allows setting playback speed.

You could build a site that inputs YouTube video URLs + WPM and then outputs the video playing at the desired WPM.

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#56

Post by shawnz »

Cacti wrote: post #34
shawnz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't seem to narrow the interpretation very much to me besides noting that imitating a random, unrecognizable stranger off the street would be a different situation.

It very much narrows it to impersonating a well known voice _in order to to sell a product_, therefore the individual is _due proceeds based upon those sales_. Impersonating a well known person for other reasons (parody, political or religious expression, etc.) would not fall under this precedent. ‘In order to sell’ also may not cover all business transactions if they are not the primary purpose, or at least that is…

> It very much narrows it to impersonating a well known voice _in order to to sell a product_, therefore the individual is _due proceeds based upon those sales_. Impersonating a well known person for other reasons (parody, political or religious expression, etc.) would not fall under this precedent.

Isn't that already covered by the fair use doctrine though? It wouldn't be a matter of copyright to begin with in those other cases.

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#57

Post by areoform »

kauffj wrote: post #51

CEO of LBRY here. These videos are welcome on LBRY. We'll have to get a real (i.e. not me commenting on HN) legal opinion should we get a take down request, but prima facie I don't see why these would be illegal. (If they are illegal and we are notified, we would put them on the company maintained blacklist, as we cannot remove anything from the network itself.) Edit: I wrote a rap on our perspective. If you're havin…

While I appreciate your hustle here, it might not be such a good idea to become the hub for deepfakes and the endless lawsuits they will invite. The deep ethical issues involved should make anyone pause, but taking on record companies and artists should make you pause further.

Everyone loves Napster as a history lesson. But it is doubtful that anyone would want to live it.

Your position seems to be inviting all of the controversy and lawsuits for little-to-no payoff.

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#58

Post by sergiotapia »

kauffj wrote: post #51

CEO of LBRY here. These videos are welcome on LBRY. We'll have to get a real (i.e. not me commenting on HN) legal opinion should we get a take down request, but prima facie I don't see why these would be illegal. (If they are illegal and we are notified, we would put them on the company maintained blacklist, as we cannot remove anything from the network itself.) Edit: I wrote a rap on our perspective. If you're havin…

I see no about page or anything on that website. Curious, is this like a P2P youtube? Decentralized somehow?

I hope something rises up and kills youtube with it's censorship. There was metacafe, then youtube, next: ???

Found this: https://lbry.tech/overview

>To create a market for accessing and publishing information1 that is global2, decentralized3, robust4, optimal5 and complete6.

Hell yes, do it!

Edit: Found the subreddit for this project, and they say youtube banned these videos? https://lbry.tv/Dr.-Erickson-COVID-19-Briefing:e1 - good job guys, the gatekeeping period of the internet 2007 to 2021 will be looked back on as dark ages.

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#59

Post by anitil »

throwaway_USD wrote: post #19
acomjean wrote: post #5

Bette 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…

In 2015 I had an unusual solicitation from a recruiter on LinkedIn - as a lawyer this in my experience is a rarity unlike tech where I understand it to be common place - with interest in offering me a General Counsel position with Romero Britto's Company. Turns out Apple engaged in discussions to license (or maybe commissioning) Britto's Art, but then Apple turned around and essentially just "knocked off" of Britto's…

Out of interest, if someone contacts you in this manner, do you/they have an implicit attorney/client privilege? Or is it only after you come to an agreement to represent them? Or is it more of a rule of thumb?

Re: With questionable copyright claim, Jay-Z orders deepfake parodies off YouTube

#60

Post by mikekchar »

acomjean wrote: post #5

Bette 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…

Just want to point out (because a lot of people seem confused) that laws requiring permission to use your likeness are not copyright. I believe they fall under the category of moral rights. Moral rights vary dramatically from country to country so it's always tricky to figure out what you are or are not allowed to do if you work internationally.
Post reply on HN