211–219 of 219 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don’t think the method of producing the fake is important in terms of court rulings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
how often does it profit large corporations and not their descendants?
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…
> 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. Imagine if that were true - a human artist couldn't create anything, because everything in the world around them is their training set! I think it has to be a likeness test - if an average person would think its a real Jay-Z music video, then it's a derivative work. Don't muddy…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What with Jeff Bridges in Tron and Peter Cushing in Rogue One, I'd suspect in about a decade or so we'll begin seeing Disney movies with an almost full cast of deceased CG actors, complete with their own voice.
I feel like I missed something--what about Jeff Bridges in Tron? Or are we talking about Tron:Legacy, and the character of CLU?
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…
> Really poorly-written fake "news" blogs "reporting" lies as truth is fiction. These are all allowed to exist (in the USA) because of the 1st Amendment. 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.
There's no reason to think libel laws wouldn't apply to deep fakes the same way the apply to a photoshopped image, or a textual lie.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
> This is a misnomer. No, I don't think so. Fair Use isn't merely a matter of court precedent, it specifically is in the Copyright Act (17 U.S. Code § 107 [1]), the language of which indicates it's on the plaintiff, and subsequent case law does seem to have affirmed that unless you have something further to cite? What you cited right there was Lenz v. Universal Music Corp, a 9th Circuit decision about abuse of DMCA t…
I agree that Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music supports it as an affirmative defense, but it is not the most modern case law even though it is the only modern supreme court case. Mattel v Walking Mountain Productions in the 2nd did not use fair use as an affirmative defense. Cariou v Prince, also in the 9th and denied certiorari is a modern case that did not depend on fair use as an affirmative defense. In the appeal they did question whether fair use is an affirmative defense specifically.
Would you say that congress intended fair use to be an affirmative defense?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don’t think the method of producing the fake is important in terms of court rulings.
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?
It is actually an extremely complex analysis that is dependent on the facts and the jurisdiction (applicable law). It simply isn't applicable to my communications with a 3rd party recruiter from LinkedIn which was not regarding legal advice but potential employment, nor did my comment contain any confidential information protected by the privilege. To address some of the other responses (common myths): 1. It does not…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think the method of producing the fake is important in terms of court rulings.
It kinda is though, if the network is trained on the source material itself. For example if I take the source material and move a few pixels, is that still the source material? What if I flip the video, which is technically moving every single pixel, that's still the a copyright issue even if the video is mirrored. The network is basically taking the pixels of the original content, learning from it, and creating a fi…