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

81–90 of 219 posts

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

#81

Post by kauffj »

jskek9 wrote: post #61
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…

So your business model is built on the presumption of possessing an inviolable license to simulate the likeness of others? I’m not so sure that’s a stable basis given a lot of laws celebrities have gotten passed protecting control of their likeness. This is a bit of a “I’m doing it on a computer so it’s different!” kind of thing that won’t necessarily legally fly. Challenging the idea that someone can’t control the r…

> So your business model is built on the presumption of possessing an inviolable license to simulate the likeness of others?

No. It's based on people desiring a publishing platform that does not allow interference from intermediaries ala YouTube, Facebook, or Amazon.

> Challenging the idea that someone can’t control the reproduction of their likeness full stop is settled in the general sense in law.

You're commenting on an article that says this content is probably legal. If you think it's not, it'd probably make more sense to comment on the top-level thread.

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

#82

Post by Animats »

hjb wrote: post #70
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…

> One of those weird copyright decisions, like the one where Owens-Corning trademarked PINK Trademarks and copyright are NOT the same thing. That trademark would only give them rights to the branding PINK in the context of insulation. Copyright is more expansive - and I think you should be more worried about copyright than trademark.

Right, PINK is a trademark of Owens-Corning, associated with licensed copyright rights from the use of The Pink Panther cartoon character in some long-forgotten ads.[1][2]

[1] https://www.owenscorning.com/copyright [2] https://youtu.be/C5uM-QwKgW4

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

#83

Post by roywiggins »

ex3ndr wrote: post #3

Isn't parodies are explicitly excluded from requiring to hold copyright to an object of a parody?

Are you sure that it's actually parodying Jay-Z? Is it making fun of Jay-Z?

Andeepfaked audiobook of a famous person reading a Brothers Grimm children's story is not obviously parody, and Jay-Z has a very well-known voice, and well known voices sell audiobooks nowadays. Just because you give it out for free doesn't make it fair use, either.

Second- no, parody is not explicitly excluded. It's one of several factors used to determine "fair use". Just because something is a parody doesn't mean it's automatically fair use, and the only way to get an explicit determination is to fight it in court.

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

#84

Post by Dramatize »

basch wrote: post #2

https://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 ho…

We just posted a new post about Lyrebird alternatives now that they've been bought: https://blog.replicastudios.com/lyrebird-alternatives/

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

#85

Post by basch »

egman_ekki wrote: post #48
basch wrote: post #2

https://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 ho…

> https://www.descript.com/ and Lyrebird prevent people from making copies of voices that arent their own how do they check which voice is your own?

If I understand correctly, you train it live. So unless you knew what script they were going to give you, and had the words prerecorded in order, it would be hard to do. Sort of like a captcha with a timer?

I wonder if they also have signatures for famous voices they can blacklist.

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

#86

Post by pc86 »

ineedasername wrote: post #80
pc86 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We are saying the same thing. Literally in the sentence you quoted, I said the same ethical issues exist in deepfakes that exist in altered still images.

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

#87

Post by rictic »

ineedasername wrote: post #77
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.

A difference in quantity can become a difference in kind.

Consider a situation down the line where your phone can do this in real time, and at a quality that is hard for the untrained ear to distinguish from the genuine article.

It's not at all clear to me what the right thing to do here.

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

#88

Post by ineedasername »

pc86 wrote: post #86
ineedasername wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

We are saying the same thing. Literally in the sentence you quoted, I said the same ethical issues exist in deepfakes that exist in altered still images.

Yes, but your comment has the potential to be read as dismissive of the ethical concern. I don't know if that was your intention, but I thought it relevant to make the distinction clearer.

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

#89

Post by crazygringo »

So if I understand this correctly...

YouTube took these videos down based on a copyright (DMCA?) claim. Which of course isn't a court ruling or anything.

At the same time, no court would ever uphold this removal, because it obviously falls under "parody" which is protected. (Otherwise shows like Saturday Night Live couldn't even exist.)

After all, the end result is no different from a really good vocal impersonator. In fact, a really good impersonator will definitely do better.

It's disappointing that Jay-Z (or more likely some lawyer working for him) is abusing YouTube's takedown mechanism this way.

But at the same time, I can see how this could seem particularly scary for a performer. After all, if you've spent decades creating a recognizable profitable persona... the idea that anybody with a personal computer can flood YouTube with fake lyrics that aren't yours could feel terrifyingly like losing control of everything you've built.

What if some really nasty stuff went viral and became as associated with Jay-Z as the rest of his stuff? Stuff that did serious damage to his brand, which "nobody could unhear"?

I genuinely wonder if deepfake technology will actually result in new copyright restriction law. I.e. to make it a crime to produce unlicensed deepfakes that are genuinely indistinguishable to the average person, regardless of whether they're parody or not. (While "bad" parodies like SNL will continue to be protected as always.)

I kind of feel like that's going to have to be the outcome at some point in the near future -- in fact, as soon as really convincing yet nasty deepfakes of senators and representatives start making the rounds and spreading on Facebook, I suspect a new law will get passed incredibly quickly.

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

#90

Post by ineedasername »

rictic wrote: post #87
ineedasername wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A difference in quantity can become a difference in kind. Consider a situation down the line where your phone can do this in real time, and at a quality that is hard for the untrained ear to distinguish from the genuine article. It's not at all clear to me what the right thing to do here.

Me neither. Companies have been sued when they use impersonators in their ads, but individual impersonators are generally left alone (excepting that they license any songs etc by those they're impersonating)

Doing things computationally allows a scale that humans alone can't achieve, and as you said that may make all the difference.

Post reply on HN