201–210 of 219 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can someone explain to me how copyright being valid after the original owner's death progresses healthy competition? What benefit does it have?
It incentivizes artists to create art, because their work will support their heirs.
, but often some large corporations
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.…
automatic Turing test pass
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…
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 a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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 putti…
No, deepfakes are relatively new. It's a specific term meaning a fake video produced with ANNs, not any type of picture that's been faked or photoshopped. The case you reference is a just and paste job, not a deepfake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A YouTuber (carykh) made a video where he explains an algorithm he made to automatically process lecture videos by speeding up, condensing and removing parts of the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ8orIurGxw
oh. my. god. This is about to change... a lot of things. Stop motion by clapping totally has me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it a parody as understood by the law, though? How is it parodying Jay-Z? It's definitely "for fun", but it's not clear that it's making fun of or commenting on Jay-Z. It's really not clear to me. This page cites a case where someone imitated Dr Seuss' literary voice and lost. https://www.cotmanip.com/articles/fair-use-parody
This is the point I was going to make. For a parody fair-use defence to be valid, you need to be parodying the thing you are infringing on, and as much as people always say "oh this is parody so it's clear fair use" by the accounts I've seen (such as Penny Arcade's Strawberry Shortcake comic) that can be a difficult defence to actually mount.
It's one thing to impersonate someone to make fun of them, but he's not picking texts for them that way. A Bush impersonator reading the phone book isn't obviously parodying Bush unless he starts throwing in comedy Bushisms or exaggerating the voice for effect. Some Elvis impersonators are parodying Elvis but a lot are just doing a straight recapitulation of his look and voice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Not if it’s libel. And a convincing deepfake that harms someone’s reputation could easily be interpreted as an act of defamation by the creator, which would mean it’s not protected speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
If it’s convincing enough to make most people believe that it’s real it’s not a parody.