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

171–180 of 219 posts

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

#171

Post by lmm »

8note wrote: post #160
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…

Major benefit: eventually, all the news networks will be able to decide that instead of whatever each candidate said, they all actually agreed that Medicare for all was the right choice, and that it will be the center of their platform. And once elected, they'll be stuck doing it, or the news networks will decide that it did happen, and no one will be able to figure out that it actually was not. At that point, is the…

So the law will be whatever Rupert Murdoch (or Mark Zuckerberg) says it should be? That's not a world you want to live in.

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

#172

Post by lmm »

stcredzero wrote: post #140
cmeacham98 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Because the law treats the "partner" relationship as something that was freely negotiated between equal parties, despite the obvious power imbalance. Video creators need to from a union to protect their interests, but since they're all "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" I doubt that'll happen.

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

#173

Post by andy_ppp »

flukus wrote: post #162
andy_ppp wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This isn't about impersonation but your copyright over your own likeness that can't be used without consent. Take a game like FIFA or Madden, they have to negotiate with the players (or their unions) in order to create realistic digital counterparts (including the names) and arguably better games often find themselves unable to compete because of this. > anyone watching these videos can see that it is NOT Jay Z in th…

I was replying to a comment saying there are laws against impersonating people, so just changing the context because you think it’s not obvious that these are deep fakes creates a straw man to argue with. I’m not sure I believe you that you couldn’t understand that these were AI generated speech either.

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

#174

Post by icebraining »

lmm wrote: post #172
stcredzero wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because the law treats the "partner" relationship as something that was freely negotiated between equal parties, despite the obvious power imbalance. Video creators need to from a union to protect their interests, but since they're all "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" I doubt that'll happen.

Let's not forget that YouTube's ContentID system is a direct result from them being sued by Viacom et all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y....

If YouTube stops taking down these videos based on this "fiduciary duty" and they get sued again, will this union pay for the legal fees and potential damages? Yeah, not likely.

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

#175

Post by icebraining »

LatteLazy wrote: post #158
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 believe the DMCA defacto REQUIRES youtube (and others) to work like this. Once the DMCA take-down comes in, if they leave something up, they become liable if the court case goes against them. So if 1000 takedowns come in, and you correctly leave 999 videos up as fair use etc, you still get demolished on the other 1. Meanwhile the company requesting 999 incorrect takedowns owes you nothing. This is a key problem wit…

The DMCA process also includes a counter-claim provision: the uploader can simply contest the takedown and have the content reinstated.

But YouTube doesn't follow the DMCA process at all, they have their own procedure, with no such recourse.

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

#176

Post by INTPenis »

Now maybe it's time for society to catch up and provide some sort of digital identification method for citizens.

Sort of like keybase but from the government.

Because deepfakes should not be under assult for being parody. Instead artists should be able to verify their own works in a secure manner.

Some countries have already started with this, mostly in the EU.

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

#177

Post by icebraining »

xyproto wrote: post #145
SilasX wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

If that were the case, then people could claim that any parody was "too good" to get it removed.

Parody must include a component of criticism or commentary. If it's just imitation, it's not fair use.

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

#178

Post by icebraining »

searchableguy wrote: post #152
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.

Can someone explain to me how copyright being valid after the original owner's death progresses healthy competition? What benefit does it have?

People work not just on their own behalf, but also of their descendants. Knowing that your spouse or kids will keep getting royalties provides an extra incentive to produce new work, much like people create businesses or make investments to leave as inheritance.

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

#179

Post by stefan_ »

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…

If there is a lesson to be learned from Napster, it's that you should charge customers, still ignore copyright and pirate music to "bootstrap" your service. That's basically Spotify right there.

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

#180

Post by LatteLazy »

icebraining wrote: post #175
LatteLazy wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the DMCA defacto REQUIRES youtube (and others) to work like this. Once the DMCA take-down comes in, if they leave something up, they become liable if the court case goes against them. So if 1000 takedowns come in, and you correctly leave 999 videos up as fair use etc, you still get demolished on the other 1. Meanwhile the company requesting 999 incorrect takedowns owes you nothing. This is a key problem wit…

The DMCA process also includes a counter-claim provision: the uploader can simply contest the takedown and have the content reinstated. But YouTube doesn't follow the DMCA process at all, they have their own procedure, with no such recourse.

My understanding is that if a uploader does that, youtube has to decide whether to keep it up. If they do, they can then be sued by the right holder if it does infringe. If they take it down, no one can sue them.

So that's a huge incentive to just take everything down.

Effectively the whole point of DCMA (this part at least) is to pierce the common carrier protection platforms have.

Am I wrong? If so, any idea what Youtube don't just let people counterclaim and leave everyone else to argue it out in court?

Post reply on HN