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

121–130 of 219 posts

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

#121

Post by Rapzid »

crazygringo wrote: post #89

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.…

> no court would ever uphold this removal

You mean enforce? Youtube can remove whatever they want; they don't need to be in the right about it.

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

#122

Post by tathougies »

crazygringo wrote: post #89

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 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.)

You don't need new law. It's already against the law to copy someone's appearance in an attempt to impersonate them other than fair use.

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

#123

Post by russellbeattie »

One could argue that the audio used to train the deepfakes was the actual infringement, as it is essentially a copy of presumably copyrighted audio, even if not republished in its original form.

This would be similar to the Google Books scanning issue. Their original plan was to scan all the books in the world so users could search them. Though Google did provide extended samples in the search results, the core issue was the scanning, which was literally a copy of the books into Google's database without permission. This was considered infringement. [1]

Where the original sound comes from and who owns the copyright for that, I don't know. Maybe the person used CNN videos, so Time Warner should be involved as well.

1. https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google....

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

#124

Post by gpm »

jameslevy wrote: post #109
crazygringo wrote: post #89

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.…

Whether or not a deepfake is used for a parody is far less important than whether content using deepfakes identifies its artificial nature. Deepfake content masquerading as real content is actually dangerous and should be regulated as such. But no, Jay-Z should not be able to take down parodies on YouTube that make it clear to the viewer that they are using deepfakes.

Deepfake used for parody is almost certainly protected by the first amendment under US law. So legally that is a very important distinction. (Morally, well, that's not a productive thing to debate on the internet usually)

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

#125

Post by andy_ppp »

tathougies wrote: post #122
crazygringo wrote: post #89

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 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.) You don't need new law. It's already against the law to copy someone's appearance in an…

I think you’ve misunderstood the point of impersonation laws, they are about stealing someone’s identity, this is not that... anyone watching these videos can see that it is NOT Jay Z in the video.

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

#126

Post by SilasX »

crazygringo wrote: post #89

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.…

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

Really? I thought if it was "so good" that people don't realize it's a parody, it loses the relevant protections against defamation and infringement on likeness rights/image/trademark/whatever.

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

#127

Post by nerdponx »

crazygringo wrote: post #89

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 wonder if there's any legal grounds in the USA for trademarking the sound of your voice, and thereby protecting it from "counterfeiting".

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

#128

Post by jariel »

akersten wrote: post #108
crazygringo wrote: post #89

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 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. Ugh, that is the type of free-speech infringement that people should be worried about, not all this stuff about how YouTube ta…

No, copying and 'reporting on' / parodying / sampling etc. are very different things.

A writer who makes a book that is word-for-word the same as another book is infringement.

Making a pixel-perfect copy of a photo, from scratch, is an infringement.

Copying a song, perfectly, is infringement.

Whether something is a 'lie or the truth' - or 'which one is more convincing' doesn't really matter.

With 'deepfakes' we're going to have to get serious because people will literally be putting words in other people's mouths, creating fake representations of other people, it's going to cause problems. This issue may not actually fall under copyright.

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

#129

Post by gnopgnip »

irjustin wrote: post #91
colechristensen wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ag…

Copyright only protects the written implementation, not ideas or likenesses. The amount of protection a likeness gets varies a lot more between states, it is a different set of laws, and outside of advertisements or defamation it often is not protected at all.
Post reply on HN