3 ms·
No, copying and 'reporting on' / parodying / sampling etc. are very different things. A writer who makes a book that is word-for-word the same as another book
by jariel 7y ago
No, copying and 'reporting on' / parodying / sampling etc. are very different things.
A writer who makes a book that is word-for-word the same as another book is infringement.
Making a pixel-perfect copy of a photo, from scratch, is an infringement.
Copying a song, perfectly, is infringement.
Whether something is a 'lie or the truth' - or 'which one is more convincing' doesn't really matter.
With 'deepfakes' we're going to have to get serious because people will literally be putting words in other people's mouths, creating fake representations of other people, it's going to cause problems. This issue may not actually fall under copyright.
- staticautomatic 7y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Prince https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Prince
- akersten 7y agoI feel like you've replied to the wrong comment - I'm not defending copyright infringement, misuse of celebrity likeness, or the content of this video. I'm specifically addressing the notion that the government would carve out a free-speech exception for "deepfakes", like "deep fakes of Politicians / Celebrities are illegal." Which would be clearly unconstitutional, because you are forbidding creation of a creative, expressive work. Whether the works that you are free to create, regardless of format (photoshopped image, deepfaked video), violate some other law - libel/slander - is separate as well. Yes, they certainly could, just like a photoshopped image today could be libelous.