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

131–140 of 219 posts

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

#131

Post by gnopgnip »

xoa wrote: post #13
ex3ndr wrote: post #3

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

Yes but with complexities in general, and a collision with non-copyright issues for deep fakes that starts to get into more unexplored societal/legal territory. First, parody is part of Fair Use, which means that it's an "affirmative defense": in a lawsuit, the burden is on the defendant to bring it up and prove it. That's in contrast to ordinary defenses or arguments around the facts asserted by the plaintiff, where…

>First, parody is part of Fair Use, which means that it's an "affirmative defense": in a lawsuit, the burden is on the defendant to bring it up and prove it. That's in contrast to ordinary defenses or arguments around the facts asserted by the plaintiff, where it's up to the plaintiff to prove them to whatever the required standard of evidence is.

This is a misnomer.

Fair use is an authorized use, and consequently is “distinct from affirmative defenses where a use infringes a copyright, but there is no liability due to a valid excuse, e.g., misuse of a copyright.” Id. Lenz, 815 F.3d at 1152

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

#132

Post by henryfjordan »

anitil wrote: post #59
throwaway_USD wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There's attorney client privilege the whole time. It does not require money to change hands or an explicit agreement of representation before kicking in (as some others have said).

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/does-the-attorney-cl...

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

#133

Post by staticautomatic »

jariel wrote: post #128
akersten wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 go…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Prince

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

#134

Post by BrandonM »

aspenmayer wrote: post #42
sneak wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That’s an amazingly obvious idea whose time has come. Who do we @ to get this on YouTube already?

Overcast does roughly that for podcasts and it works great.

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

#135

Post by sandworm101 »

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.…

>> 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.

No. This isn't a new area of law. Legal "Deepfakes" have been around a long while. There is even a supreme court case covering the matter: Falwell, 1988. That involved a fake interview with Billy Graham, using his image and putting words in his mouth. If the 1988 supreme court wouldn't protect the reputation of a national religious leader, they aren't going to do so for politicians today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

This is from the movie, but it is accurate to what was said. This interaction really did change supreme court procedure, introducing a far less formal back-and-forth oral argument. Jokes were almost unheard of before this case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeTuNES82O0

The trial court argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsvB61mDoG8

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

#136

Post by akersten »

jariel wrote: post #128
akersten wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 go…

I feel like you've replied to the wrong comment - I'm not defending copyright infringement, misuse of celebrity likeness, or the content of this video.

I'm specifically addressing the notion that the government would carve out a free-speech exception for "deepfakes", like "deep fakes of Politicians / Celebrities are illegal." Which would be clearly unconstitutional, because you are forbidding creation of a creative, expressive work.

Whether the works that you are free to create, regardless of format (photoshopped image, deepfaked video), violate some other law - libel/slander - is separate as well. Yes, they certainly could, just like a photoshopped image today could be libelous.

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

#138

Post by jimmySixDOF »

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…

Pop stars on YouTube ? Fair use & freedom of speech ? Deepfakes will be used to cause a war in the near future where people are killed and who are we going to point our DMCA take down requests at then ? What will the third world victims of some hate story stirred up by AI doctored footage care about first amendment protections in America ? Deepfakes are a clear and present existential danger to ourselves and others and at this point I'm afraid you are correct, there is no good solution. God help us all once we can't even believe what we see anymore.

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

#139

Post by noah_buddy »

henryfjordan wrote: post #132
anitil wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There's attorney client privilege the whole time. It does not require money to change hands or an explicit agreement of representation before kicking in (as some others have said). https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/does-the-attorney-cl...

I don't believe that that link supports the general assertion you're making about there being attorney client privilege the entire time. In this case, if the above lawyer receives a message that is unsolicited, Apple should have no expectation of that privilege/privacy of the communications without some prior agreement. Apple has no way to know that the account is even directly run by the lawyer themself or an aide.

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

#140

Post by stcredzero »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #120
Reelin wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no court would ever uphold this removal, because it obviously falls under "parody" which is protected Not a lawyer, but... It doesn't seem like parody to me. It also doesn't seem like it has much of anything to do with copyright at all - one of the videos taken down was reportedly a performance of an excerpt from Hamlet, which is definitely in the public domain. On the other hand it does seem like a possible violat…

> Which is confusing, because I thought the DMCA only applied to copyright (it's the Digital Millennium _Copyright_ Act, after all) but perhaps I'm wrong and it includes provisions about trademark as well? As far as I know, a legally enforceable "DMCA takedown" can only be about copyright infringement. However, YouTube is under no obligation to not honor takedowns that aren't legally binding.

However, YouTube is under no obligation to not honor takedowns that aren't legally binding.

That's what's ripe for abuse. Why isn't it a fiduciary responsibility to their "partners" to make sure they aren't needlessly deprived of revenue, in situations where a 1st year law student could tell them there isn't a legal basis for the takedown?

Post reply on HN