Live data from Hacker News

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

waxy.org

91–100 of 219 posts

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

#91
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 you…

I agree with deepfakes are derivatives. You're using the likeness of someone whether visual or audio to highlight work. People pay attention because of that likeness. Weird Al asks for permission, video games have to pay royalties. So JayZ should have been asked permission in that sense.

If this was a parody, that could probably be argued very differently. Not sure where this particular case falls legally.

I don't agree with if you don't own the copyright you are infringing by publishing something the model produces. It should be tied back to the likeness of the original source.

The argument would be - if I never used any copyrighted JayZ sources (talking in a public setting, not giving a speech) and produced a deepfake, provably so, that would prevent me from being sued by JayZ & co?

Ideally no, because I'm still using his likeness to promote something.

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

#93

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.…

I imagine that would likely fall under a new trademark or fraud law rather than copyright.

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

#94

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.…

It's a very fuzzy line they'll need to draw. The Onion seems like a good example of parody done really well, to a point that people often "eat the onion" and believe it. Would it be defamation if you published a quote that wasn't actually said by someone? That might be the analog they use to go after deepfakes in the future.

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

#95

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.…

The definition of parody is somewhat vague, and parody is often subtle. It seems difficult to define and enforce objectively.

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

#96

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.…

I could actually see it as libel. You’re leading people to believe the artist did something (created a work or said something) which isn’t true. SNL and other parodies would obviously be exempt because there’s no misrepresentation. A reasonable person doesn’t actually believe Trump went on SNL and happens to look like Alec Baldwin that day.

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

#97
post #29
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird Al is trying to save himself trouble, because going to court can be expensive even when you win. He can legally do parodies without consent, but since so many people are happy to give him permission, that's the easier route for him.

Most of Weird Al's songs aren't parodies in the legal sense. "Party in the CIA" is just "Party in the USA" with different Lyrics, it's not protected, just like most covers aren't. "Smells like Nirvana" is, because it directly references and parodies how the singer in the song is barely understandable.

Where would White and Nerdy place? It's not a direct comment on the original artist, but it is intentionally playing with a reversal of the stereotypes associated with the original piece.

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

#98

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.…

The article doesn't go into detail on what happened.

If it was a [manual] Content ID claim, there's no legal reason YT has to remove the video; the content ID system exists to provide an (arguably abusable) way for YT to scan every piece of uploaded content for copyrighted material.

If it was a DMCA, YouTube has to remove the video to maintain impunity.

But, as stated in a related comment, this is new territory in the eyes of the law. Maybe this video is a parody, but if it's not clear about that it would be clearly illegal. Even an extremely good impersonator can be sued if they try to actually pass themselves off as someone else.

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

#100

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.…

The definition of parody is somewhat vague, and parody is often subtle. It seems difficult to define and enforce objectively.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN