7 ms·
From the definitions section of the act: > The term 'deep fake' means an audiovisual record created or altered in a manner that the record would falsely appear
by jawns 8y ago
From the definitions section of the act:
> The term 'deep fake' means an audiovisual record created or altered in a manner that the record would falsely appear to a reasonable observer to be an authentic record of the actual speech or conduct of an individual.
This limits the scope of the act to prohibiting deep fakes that are not explicitly labeled as such. If the recording (or, potentially, links to the recording) contains any type of disclaimer, that should be sufficient to establish that no reasonable observer would consider it to be authentic.
But I wonder if this provides enough protection to victims in the case of deep fakes where a person's face is grafted onto sexual content or other content that might embarrass the person, whether or not a disclaimer exists.
For instance, if someone puts an acquaintance's face into a sex scene and distributes it online, then even if there's a huge "This is a deep fake" scrolling disclaimer across the video, that person may still feel as if they have been defamed.
- londons_explore 8y agoIt seems quite a constraint on creativity to say 'You can't make something look legit when it isn't'.
- gotocake 8y agoIt’s not a new concept, and it applies to the difference between a painter copying a Van Gogh (acceptable) and trying to pass that work off as the genuine article (illegal). In short, it’s the line between creative expression and forgery.
- vorpalhex 8y agoOr, you have to at least put a disclaimer on it if it's likely to cause confusion. This isn't new. > All Characters and events in this show -- even those based on real people -- are entirely fictional. All celebrity voices are impersonated... poorly. The following ...
- pjc50 8y agoAs others have pointed out, "making something look legit when it isn't" is a good description of fraud, and films have long had disclaimers in the credits that they are fictional.
- herostratus101 8y agoI'm not sure your reading of this is warranted at all. In any event, are you sure it protects you from criminal liability if you label something as a deep fake, then other people redistribute it without that label?
- wil421 8y agoCould someone already sue you for libel if you created a deep fake of them?
- jawns 8y ago> are you sure it protects you from criminal liability if you label something as a deep fake, then other people redistribute it without that label? No, I'm not sure. I said "potentially," but I don't know. I think it may be plausible to argue that labeling a recording outside of the recording itself should be one factor in deciding whether a reasonable observer would consider it authentic. And I think it may also be plausible to argue that doing so protects the labeler, and that (particularly if the license to redistribute requires that the disclaimer be shown in any subsequent distribution channels) only the people who distribute it without the label should be found to have violated the act.
- grigjd3 8y agoI suppose the person who removed the label would, theoretically, be the guilty party. One could argue that law enforcement is flawed, but that's true for any law.
- Shish2k 8y ago> if you label something as a deep fake, then other people redistribute it without that label? If I print off a copy of a Van Gogh making it clear that it's a copy, and then somebody else sells it as an original, who is liable for fraud?
- apetresc 8y agoThe intent of the law seems different in these cases though. The purpose of anti-forgery laws is to protect the producers and consumers of art from being ripped off financially. The purpose of deep-fake prohibitions is to protect the viewers of the video from being misled about reality, and the subject of the video from the consequences thereof. Yes they both involve making visual copies of things but the underlying dynamics are completely different.
- kakarot 8y ago> For instance, if someone puts an acquaintance's face into a sex scene and distributes it online, then even if there's a huge "This is a deep fake" scrolling disclaimer across the video, that person may still feel as if they have been defamed. A lot of people might not like relinquishing the authoritarian reaction to control the fictional creative output of others when it specifically targets them in a negative and public manner, but unfortunately respecting freedom of speech demands that deep fakes be protected from civil or legal action. We have to adapt our laws to reality as technology changes it, not the other way around. However, if a deep fake is used to specifically target and harass an individual on a personal level, i.e. not parody/political speech but actually contacting and engaging with family/friends/associates of the victim in order to cause harm, then afaik that is already covered by existing harassment laws.
- yayr 8y ago> We have to adapt our laws to reality as technology changes it, not the other way around social norms and law as a consequence always have to strike the balance between personal freedom of [x] vs the others personal freedom of [x,y]. just because a technology exists, it doesn't mean it should be used in any way. As an extreme example let's take "knife technology", you just should not put that tech piece into any human body and see what happens... so it's clear where the balance is in this case. deep fake should be the same as any other human dignity vs. free speech discussion imo. There seem to be different norms in different countries too regarding this, it's not always authoritarian.
- lotsofpulp 8y agoThe damage caused by stabbing someone with a knife is not the same as editing a video with someone's face.
- ben_w 8y agoConsider what happened to the pizza parlour named in the “Pizzagate” story (despite the named pizza parlour not having a basement), and consider what would’ve happened if someone had made a DeepFake with Clinton‘s face to “prove” the claims.
- harperlee 8y ago> that person may still feel as if they have been defamed. Don’t defamation or personal honour laws cover this scenario already in most countries, as would be the case with obscene caricatures of someone? Do we need new laws specific for deep fakes in that case? What about for videos that very obviously just paste the target’s face on top of another video?
- SiempreViernes 8y agoYeah, though I can see the case for additions that makes defamation using deep fakes a more serious crime than less competent caricatures.
- jfengel 8y agoI'm not a lawyer, but the answer may well be "no, this isn't already covered". Especially when courts like to construe things narrowly, and that anything not specifically mentioned in a law requires relief through the legislature rather than the judicial branch. There will surely be people who claim that this isn't covered by existing defamation laws, and I would not be so sure that a court wouldn't agree with them.
- docker_up 8y agoWhat if someone produces a deep fake with the disclaimer, but then someone copies the video, edits out the disclaimer and then posts that edited video? Is the second person guilty of creating a deep fake or guilty of something else?
- RobLach 8y agoI think that case is fine since that is already covered by laws which punish harassment and malicious defamation. It gets more complicated if you account for celebrity.
- Bartweiss 8y ago> an audiovisual record created...in a manner that the record would falsely appear to a reasonable observer to be an authentic record Presumably this 'created' case is meant to prevent something like Nvidia's face-gen tool being used to create a lookalike video from scratch with the defense "it's not an alteration". But there's no wording restricting this to digital generation (or alteration). As far as I can tell, this covers anything from a photo with a lookalike to a real but misleadingly-cut sound recording. Am I missing something, or would this have made producing that 2004 faked photo of Jane Fonda and John Kerry a felony offense?