3 ms·
IANAL, but at least for images that are designed to appear to be, or likely to be perceived as, a real photograph, it strikes me as comparable to libel or sland
by curryst 7y ago
IANAL, but at least for images that are designed to appear to be, or likely to be perceived as, a real photograph, it strikes me as comparable to libel or slander. To me, the distinction is whether a viewer is likely to interpret the image as satire or general humor, or if they are likely to believe that it is genuine photographic evidence of a compromising event. Satire and humor are protected
You drawing a picture is unlikely to pass that muster. Deepfakes, on the other hand, are generally designed to be falsified images.
I think the interpretation of this will lean heavily on being able to prove intent.
- zzo38computer 7y agoAs long as it includes a disclaimer that it is a fake (even though it appears to be a real photograph), I do not complain about it, because I like freedom of speech.
- jakobegger 7y agoDisclaimers are useless because people strip them when they repost the image
- AstralStorm 7y agoMake stripping disclaimers illegal? Like stripping copyright claims. Removing the disclaimers is in most cases breaking copyright anyway. It does not count as a remix. It does not count as a quotation and definitely not as archival. That bit is easy to detect most of the time...
- pfisch 7y agoYeah, and all we have to do to stop piracy is make it illegal. Right?