4 ms·

There was a thread on /r/machinelearning titled "Is it legal to use copyright material as training data?" https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/4qrg

by zawerf 9y ago

There was a thread on /r/machinelearning titled "Is it legal to use copyright material as training data?" https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/4qrgh8/is_it_legal_to_use_copyright_material_as_training/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/4qrgh8/is_... But the issue here isn't whether training on copyrighted face images is legal. You can totally take copyright-free photos of anybody as long as they appear in public. The more interesting question I think is whether you own the copyright to the 3D capture of your face. For example disney won't let you get away with using models of their characters. Don't I have the right to not let anyone use the "model" that I spent my literal life growing?

brazzledazzle 9y ago
It's even more complicated than your Disney character analogy because if you can own the copyright of your likeness you can sell it. Imagine a young actress signing over her likeness to a predatory agency early in her career before making it big.
Larrikin 9y ago
By default you don't own your likeness, but you can file the paperwork to own it. Michael Jordan famously wasn't in any of the major basketball games during his prime because he owned his own likeness, so there would have to have been separate licensing deals apart from the NBA to include him.
PeterisP 9y ago
It's probably not relevant to bring in copyright here. The restrictions for using your likeness or publicizing deepfake videos with your face on them come from other laws, not copyright. For example, "disney won't let you get away with using models of their characters", but (depending on how you use them) it's just as likely to use trademark restrictions even in situations where copyright law would let them use them. In a similar manner, the fact that you can take copyright-free photos of anybody as long as they appear in public doesn't necessarily mean (for example) that you're allowed to publish those photos like you can your own; or that this has any impact whatsoever on your rights to use copyrighted face images - you could have taken the photo, but you did not, so standard restrictions apply. "If some law prohibits others to do that it does not really equal to "the copyright to the 3D capture of your face" even if some restrictions are similar, it's an apples vs oranges thing, it shouldn't be called that - terminology matters, because it implies different rules. For this discussion, the main question is about restrictions for publicizing fake videos of other people without their consent. There are some restrictions, they're not copyright-based and also are quite different for every jurisdiction, as they aren't harmonized with global treaties like copyright is. Also, these restrictions are different for public people (e.g. the examples with Trump or famous actresses), and the restrictions for distributing videos with your face would be different.
rmc 9y ago
EU Data protection law might kick in as well.

by zawerf 9y ago

brazzledazzle 9y ago

It's even more complicated than your Disney character analogy because if you can own the copyright of your likeness you can sell it. Imagine a young actress signing over her likeness to a predatory agency early in her career before making it big.

Larrikin 9y ago

By default you don't own your likeness, but you can file the paperwork to own it. Michael Jordan famously wasn't in any of the major basketball games during his prime because he owned his own likeness, so there would have to have been separate licensing deals apart from the NBA to include him.

PeterisP 9y ago

It's probably not relevant to bring in copyright here. The restrictions for using your likeness or publicizing deepfake videos with your face on them come from other laws, not copyright. For example, "disney won't let you get away with using models of their characters", but (depending on how you use them) it's just as likely to use trademark restrictions even in situations where copyright law would let them use them. In a similar manner, the fact that you can take copyright-free photos of anybody as long as they appear in public doesn't necessarily mean (for example) that you're allowed to publish those photos like you can your own; or that this has any impact whatsoever on your rights to use copyrighted face images - you could have taken the photo, but you did not, so standard restrictions apply. "If some law prohibits others to do that it does not really equal to "the copyright to the 3D capture of your face" even if some restrictions are similar, it's an apples vs oranges thing, it shouldn't be called that - terminology matters, because it implies different rules. For this discussion, the main question is about restrictions for publicizing fake videos of other people without their consent. There are some restrictions, they're not copyright-based and also are quite different for every jurisdiction, as they aren't harmonized with global treaties like copyright is. Also, these restrictions are different for public people (e.g. the examples with Trump or famous actresses), and the restrictions for distributing videos with your face would be different.

rmc 9y ago

EU Data protection law might kick in as well.