2 ms·
> It is a well-settled point of law that a statement after the tortious act doesn't undo the tort That's not what I was referring to. People who are publishin
by golergka 9y ago
> It is a well-settled point of law that a statement after the tortious act doesn't undo the tort
That's not what I was referring to.
People who are publishing these videos are at the same time publicly say that these are works of fiction and fake. Not sometime later; right at the same time. They publish it in the reddit that has "fake" in the name. They often put "fake" in the title. They sometimes watermark it with a word "fake".
How can this be defamation or libel?
- gamblor956 9y agoBecause you're only looking at the first part of a potential defamation action, the initial publication, and ignoring everything that can happen after that... By posting it to reddit or online, the deepfaker should have expected that it would be further disseminated (and that is the standard they will be held to, even if they didn't actually expect that). In order for statement of falsity to be a defense to defamtion, they would have to take steps to reasonably ensure that the statement accompanies the further dissemination of the video/image. This means intrinsically tying it to the fake content. A filename wouldn't be enough; they would need to embed it into the video itself, at the points where the images are faked, into order to avoid liability for defamation. Anything less than that and every jury in the country would find them liable for defamation. Tort law is complicated. The deepfaker of Daisy Ridley is in for a world of hurt if she chooses to pursue a defamation claim. On the other hand, the news sites that posted clips from the deepfake are not.That's an entirely separate discussion...
- golergka 9y agoOK, this actually makes sense, thanks. Would a good watermark suffice, for example?