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

71–80 of 219 posts

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

#71

Post by colechristensen »

Animats wrote: post #64

This was approached all wrong. The first highly publicized demos of singing generated like this should have been of dead people - Michael Jackson, John Lennon, Elvis. First, it's not clear who has the right to sue, and in what jurisdiction. Rights associated with those people have been transferred and resold enough times that there's no clear claimant. Second, many people have impersonated those voices, so there's a…

Deepfakes (a better term is needed) are by their nature derivative works, which copyright already handles with the original's owner retaining rights which have to be acquired. I have absolutely no problem with it. If you don't own the copyright to your entire training data set, you are infringing by publishing something the model produces as I see it.

The courts or the legislature are going to have to address how your rights to your own image being synthesized like this, but again, I have no problem with someone retaining the same sorts of original ownership rights when it comes to derivative works that use data collected from them, beyond just who owns the copyright to the works in the dataset. (voice, video, images, etc.)

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

#72

Post by 00__00 »

If your image if your income, having it defamed via a deep fake or the image rights, aka copyright is only fair. Can't understand why anyone would not back a creator. So many on here are themselves working to create a unique creation that they can live off of.

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

#73

Post by em-bee »

OrgNet wrote: post #65
Animats wrote: post #64

This was approached all wrong. The first highly publicized demos of singing generated like this should have been of dead people - Michael Jackson, John Lennon, Elvis. First, it's not clear who has the right to sue, and in what jurisdiction. Rights associated with those people have been transferred and resold enough times that there's no clear claimant. Second, many people have impersonated those voices, so there's a…

dead people's copyrighted work sues for copyright issues all the time... not sure how that would help.

if you see a new video with elvis presley today, you know it's not really him. the chances of mistaken identiy is low.

if the person is still alive then people might believe it's an original and the impersonated can legitimately claim that the fake is profiting from that mistaken identity.

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

#74

Post by roywiggins »

zucker42 wrote: post #54
AlexanderNull wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it a parody as understood by the law, though? How is it parodying Jay-Z? It's definitely "for fun", but it's not clear that it's making fun of or commenting on Jay-Z.

It's really not clear to me. This page cites a case where someone imitated Dr Seuss' literary voice and lost.

https://www.cotmanip.com/articles/fair-use-parody

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

#75

Post by ineedasername »

Animats wrote: post #64

This was approached all wrong. The first highly publicized demos of singing generated like this should have been of dead people - Michael Jackson, John Lennon, Elvis. First, it's not clear who has the right to sue, and in what jurisdiction. Rights associated with those people have been transferred and resold enough times that there's no clear claimant. Second, many people have impersonated those voices, so there's a…

>Rights associated with those people have been transferred and resold enough times that there's no clear claimant

That doesn't really matter. Anyone who held any piece of the rights could submit to YouTube for a take down, and YouTube will do it. They don't go very far in trying to figure out the legitimacy of a claim, and any rights holder will be good enough for them.

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

#76

Post by ineedasername »

em-bee wrote: post #73
OrgNet wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

dead people's copyrighted work sues for copyright issues all the time... not sure how that would help.

if you see a new video with elvis presley today, you know it's not really him. the chances of mistaken identiy is low. if the person is still alive then people might believe it's an original and the impersonated can legitimately claim that the fake is profiting from that mistaken identity.

Mistaken identity doesn't come into play here. It's copyright that got the videos removed, not publicity rights.

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

#77

Post by ineedasername »

00__00 wrote: post #72

If your image if your income, having it defamed via a deep fake or the image rights, aka copyright is only fair. Can't understand why anyone would not back a creator. So many on here are themselves working to create a unique creation that they can live off of.

A human impersonator, clearly labelled as such, probably wouldn't have received the same treatment. These videos were simply computer-assisted impersonations.

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

#78

Post by kauffj »

areoform wrote: post #57
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 th…

I agree with pc86 on the ethical issues.

On the pragmatic ones:

- If the lawsuits ever become unbearable we can always choose to simply stop existing. One beautiful part of LBRY is that it does not depend on the company to work.

- It's not so much that we want to be thought of as the deep fake place, so much as we want to be thought of as a place for people who want to make their own choices. I think supporting this supports that goal.

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

#79

Post by kauffj »

sergiotapia wrote: post #58
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 s…

Thank you sergio! lbry.tech is the best resource to learn about what LBRY is from a technical perspective.

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

#80

Post by ineedasername »

pc86 wrote: post #68
areoform wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

There are no ethical issues in deepfake videos that weren't existent during the same infantile stages of faked and Photoshopped images on the internet. Some people could pick them out immediately. Some people are fooled even by obvious fakes. That will never change.

>There are no ethical issues in deepfake videos that weren't existent during the same infantile stages of faked and Photoshopped images on the internet

That is not the same thing as "there are no ethical issues". I'm sure some people, especially the celebrities portrayed, would feel there are the same ethical issues in all cases, and any difference is merely one of degree, not kind.

Post reply on HN