4 ms·

Reddit is a private organization that can obviously decide what they do or don't allow on their site. That said I am still interested in if the images created

Reddit is a private organization that can obviously decide what they do or don't allow on their site. That said I am still interested in if the images created by this technology are challenged legally. The adult actors created and released these videos with their consent (presumably), and the facial reconstruction of the celebrities are usually drawn from public sources (Facebook, Instagram, news articles). Could they claim copyright on these videos? It's hard to argue that they aren't transformative. Supposedly some are challenged on the grounds of defamation or slander, claiming that these images are falsely claiming that celebrities performed these sex acts. However, this seems like a very weak claim given that many of the places hosting these images are transparent about the fact that they are fabricated. This specific application of the technology isn't something I care that much about, but I think it has the potential to set significant precedent about what sorts of derivative works are permissible with technology that can create fake media that is increasingly hard to distinguish from reality.

gus_massa 9y ago
It's probably illegal, but IAMAL. It's easy to imagine an equivalent with software: You can't buy a copy of Windows(R)(TM)(C) and make some patching (or DeepPatching) to change the icons and background and some of the txt, and then release/sell it. Even if Windows was released voluntarily by Microsoft. Even if you use photos of celebrities instead of icons. [You neither can't modify Linux and release it with another license, like a proprietary license, BSD, GPL3, ... It also has a very specific license.] The actors/directors/whatever released the videos with a license, that probably doesn't allow redistribution and modifications. I'm not sure about the license of the photos in Facebook/Instagram, but the photos in newspaper usually have a restrictive copyright. Perhaps there is a loophole using very old videos, and old photos, but ... IANAL.(Wikipedia says something about 1923, the Mickey Mouse video was made in 1928 and still is under copyright.)
- YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
  >> It's probably illegal, but IAMAL. Sorry- "IAMAL" or "IANAL"?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - gus_massa 9y ago
    Definitively not a lawyer. Sorry for the typo.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
      Thanks for clarifying!
- manfredo 9y ago
  Fair use is handled quite differently with media as opposed to software products, and derivative works can often be legal. Derivative works can be exempt from copyright if they "uses a source work in completely new or unexpected ways". Additionally, pornographic parodies of public figures has a long history dating back centuries at least - explicit depictions of Marie Antionette during the French Revolution are an example off the top of my head. In fact, when I Google "Fair Use Transformative" a face-swap of the Mona Lisa is one of the first results I get.[2] I am not confident that a video or GIF would be treated differently than a still image by the courts. Additionally, the "Supreme Court has indicated that offensiveness is not a fair use factor" [3] so there's a good chance that moral outrage over deepfakes is not likely to be enough to criminalize it. That said, hosting sites invariably have clauses that state they can remove any content they don't like so this content is probably going to be relegated to 4chan and whatnot. As stated in the root comment, I'm fine with companies taking that prerogative. I dislike to notion of people faces - arguably their identities - being swapped onto objectionable or embarrassing content but at the same time I don't see it being banned given the current precedence. [1] https://www.lib.umn.edu/copyright/fairuse https://www.lib.umn.edu/copyright/fairuse [2] https://lh4.ggpht.com/gB5n9MpLL-AzDdn4G6tizWf5MTu8PhUdGFHe0LtjY07fTeFdxTafO2ZNshIkwkCNlsHjwclFu4jo5_6n9gniUXwn0w=s1024 https://lh4.ggpht.com/gB5n9MpLL-AzDdn4G6tizWf5MTu8PhUdGFHe0L... [3] https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/#the_fifth_fair_use_factor_are_you_good_or_bad https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/...
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Being 500 years old, the Mona Lisa is probably out of all rights. The French Revolution is also not a great time to measure the enforcement of laws - she was probably more worried about keeping her head on her shoulders than about lewd pictures of her. Copyright does have fair use exceptions, but some countries and US states also have personality rights that control the use of one's image. Hulk Hogan's case against Gawker, for exemple, was not own on copyright grounds, as far as I can tell.
  - gus_massa 9y ago
    I think it's like translating a movie or a book. You must have the authorization of the copyright holders (or hope that nobody cares or try to fly under the radar). The "new and unexpected" part will fade away in a month.

gus_massa 9y ago

It's probably illegal, but IAMAL. It's easy to imagine an equivalent with software: You can't buy a copy of Windows(R)(TM)(C) and make some patching (or DeepPatching) to change the icons and background and some of the txt, and then release/sell it. Even if Windows was released voluntarily by Microsoft. Even if you use photos of celebrities instead of icons. [You neither can't modify Linux and release it with another license, like a proprietary license, BSD, GPL3, ... It also has a very specific license.] The actors/directors/whatever released the videos with a license, that probably doesn't allow redistribution and modifications. I'm not sure about the license of the photos in Facebook/Instagram, but the photos in newspaper usually have a restrictive copyright. Perhaps there is a loophole using very old videos, and old photos, but ... IANAL.(Wikipedia says something about 1923, the Mickey Mouse video was made in 1928 and still is under copyright.)

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
>> It's probably illegal, but IAMAL. Sorry- "IAMAL" or "IANAL"?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- gus_massa 9y ago
  Definitively not a lawyer. Sorry for the typo.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
    Thanks for clarifying!
manfredo 9y ago
Fair use is handled quite differently with media as opposed to software products, and derivative works can often be legal. Derivative works can be exempt from copyright if they "uses a source work in completely new or unexpected ways". Additionally, pornographic parodies of public figures has a long history dating back centuries at least - explicit depictions of Marie Antionette during the French Revolution are an example off the top of my head. In fact, when I Google "Fair Use Transformative" a face-swap of the Mona Lisa is one of the first results I get.[2] I am not confident that a video or GIF would be treated differently than a still image by the courts. Additionally, the "Supreme Court has indicated that offensiveness is not a fair use factor" [3] so there's a good chance that moral outrage over deepfakes is not likely to be enough to criminalize it. That said, hosting sites invariably have clauses that state they can remove any content they don't like so this content is probably going to be relegated to 4chan and whatnot. As stated in the root comment, I'm fine with companies taking that prerogative. I dislike to notion of people faces - arguably their identities - being swapped onto objectionable or embarrassing content but at the same time I don't see it being banned given the current precedence. [1] https://www.lib.umn.edu/copyright/fairuse https://www.lib.umn.edu/copyright/fairuse [2] https://lh4.ggpht.com/gB5n9MpLL-AzDdn4G6tizWf5MTu8PhUdGFHe0LtjY07fTeFdxTafO2ZNshIkwkCNlsHjwclFu4jo5_6n9gniUXwn0w=s1024 https://lh4.ggpht.com/gB5n9MpLL-AzDdn4G6tizWf5MTu8PhUdGFHe0L... [3] https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/#the_fifth_fair_use_factor_are_you_good_or_bad https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/...
- icebraining 9y ago
  Being 500 years old, the Mona Lisa is probably out of all rights. The French Revolution is also not a great time to measure the enforcement of laws - she was probably more worried about keeping her head on her shoulders than about lewd pictures of her. Copyright does have fair use exceptions, but some countries and US states also have personality rights that control the use of one's image. Hulk Hogan's case against Gawker, for exemple, was not own on copyright grounds, as far as I can tell.
- gus_massa 9y ago
  I think it's like translating a movie or a book. You must have the authorization of the copyright holders (or hope that nobody cares or try to fly under the radar). The "new and unexpected" part will fade away in a month.