4 ms·

I’d be curious to know if the actresses who are being faked, would have a similar problem if I were to, say, make a life like painting of them being naked. Arti

I’d be curious to know if the actresses who are being faked, would have a similar problem if I were to, say, make a life like painting of them being naked. Artists sell images of actors all the time. People know they’re paintings. I’m struggling to understand the distinction here. The digital creation is just a painting. It’s a digital painting. It’s 1000s of digital paintings being showed in sequence. You may be tempted to think the issue is that when consumers view an oil painting of a naked actress they know it’s fake. Where as deep fakes could leave less knowledgeable viewers under the impression that the actress in question actually performed in pr0n. Ok so mandate that deep fakes are labeled as such. Clearly it’s ok to do it in oil on canvas so when does it become wrong when done digitally? There’s simply no victim here.

Valgrim 6y ago
The crime here is called libel, and the victim is the person being faked, who could sue to recover damages caused by a loss of reputation.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  That assumes it is being presented as real - deepfake porn of popular actresses is basically more about fulfilling the demand for lusty imaginations than "look <<actress>> is a slut!".
  - kadoban 6y ago
    I'd imagine some kind of case could be made based on misusing their likeness that this still isn't allowed, for the same reason you're not allowed to use just random photos of a celebrity to advertise your products for instance. I'm way not a lawyer though.
- sirmoveon 6y ago
  Would it be a legal problem if they were to use different names or close enough but different names? I wonder because the real interest here is the physical appereance being the same or similar to the person, and I'm not aware of trademarks with human appereance. Technology disrupting societal beliefs system. Love it.
- abstractbarista 6y ago
  Since libel is "a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation", what if the videos were titled appropriately, clearly indicating it is not actually the celebrity in the video. Instead of "<Celebrity Name> <Sex Act>", it could be titled "DeepFake Rendering of <Celebrity Name> <Sex Act>". While videos could still damage the reputation of someone (only in the eyes of those who disapprove of porn), there is clearly no "false statement" being made.
  - Razengan 6y ago
    What if someone made a deepfake of you for a scat fetish site?
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    This is not about false statements. Is about lotta money. The body, image and look of famous people is their brand. Is why actress are generously paid to sell parfums, anti-age potions and lipstick and is the reason why lots of families take their children to cinema. Linking this image to porn (or racism, or anything nasty) in the previous week to a expensive film's premiere can damage seriously their investment and turn an innocent people into poison for box office In the same way, a deep fake porn of a candidate can destroy the lucrative source of business that represents being elected or not. My bet is that would soon be detected as a major treat for a lot of huge companies and will be crushed, nuked and drown in a lawyers tide before 24h from the release.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Libel is a tort, not a crime (in the US, but it is a crime in India).
gamblor956 6y ago
It's called use of likeness. It's what let's celebrities control the use of their image for commercial purposes. (In this context commercial includes art given away for free; it basically means any use that isn't strictly private to the creator of the image.)
wy35 6y ago
>Clearly it’s ok to do it in oil on canvas so... A very confident yet untrue statement. Many celebrities expressed extreme discomfort over people photoshopping them nude or creating lifelike drawings of them nude (yes, that includes "oil on canvas"). >Artists sell images of actors all the time. People know they’re paintings. Just because people know they're fake does not mean it's okay. You only addressed the issue of people believing faked scandalous content. What about the fact that it's simply fucked up to create lifelike sexual content of a non-consenting person for the sole purpose of sexual pleasure? People don't want to be publicly seen naked or having sex because they highly value their privacy when it comes to their bodies. Simulating extremely private acts or images is just violating and disrespectful. They are the victims.

Valgrim 6y ago

The crime here is called libel, and the victim is the person being faked, who could sue to recover damages caused by a loss of reputation.

Nasrudith 6y ago
That assumes it is being presented as real - deepfake porn of popular actresses is basically more about fulfilling the demand for lusty imaginations than "look <<actress>> is a slut!".
- kadoban 6y ago
  I'd imagine some kind of case could be made based on misusing their likeness that this still isn't allowed, for the same reason you're not allowed to use just random photos of a celebrity to advertise your products for instance. I'm way not a lawyer though.
sirmoveon 6y ago
Would it be a legal problem if they were to use different names or close enough but different names? I wonder because the real interest here is the physical appereance being the same or similar to the person, and I'm not aware of trademarks with human appereance. Technology disrupting societal beliefs system. Love it.
abstractbarista 6y ago
Since libel is "a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation", what if the videos were titled appropriately, clearly indicating it is not actually the celebrity in the video. Instead of "<Celebrity Name> <Sex Act>", it could be titled "DeepFake Rendering of <Celebrity Name> <Sex Act>". While videos could still damage the reputation of someone (only in the eyes of those who disapprove of porn), there is clearly no "false statement" being made.
- Razengan 6y ago
  What if someone made a deepfake of you for a scat fetish site?
- pvaldes 6y ago
  This is not about false statements. Is about lotta money. The body, image and look of famous people is their brand. Is why actress are generously paid to sell parfums, anti-age potions and lipstick and is the reason why lots of families take their children to cinema. Linking this image to porn (or racism, or anything nasty) in the previous week to a expensive film's premiere can damage seriously their investment and turn an innocent people into poison for box office In the same way, a deep fake porn of a candidate can destroy the lucrative source of business that represents being elected or not. My bet is that would soon be detected as a major treat for a lot of huge companies and will be crushed, nuked and drown in a lawyers tide before 24h from the release.
gamblor956 6y ago
Libel is a tort, not a crime (in the US, but it is a crime in India).

gamblor956 6y ago

It's called use of likeness. It's what let's celebrities control the use of their image for commercial purposes. (In this context commercial includes art given away for free; it basically means any use that isn't strictly private to the creator of the image.)

wy35 6y ago

>Clearly it’s ok to do it in oil on canvas so... A very confident yet untrue statement. Many celebrities expressed extreme discomfort over people photoshopping them nude or creating lifelike drawings of them nude (yes, that includes "oil on canvas"). >Artists sell images of actors all the time. People know they’re paintings. Just because people know they're fake does not mean it's okay. You only addressed the issue of people believing faked scandalous content. What about the fact that it's simply fucked up to create lifelike sexual content of a non-consenting person for the sole purpose of sexual pleasure? People don't want to be publicly seen naked or having sex because they highly value their privacy when it comes to their bodies. Simulating extremely private acts or images is just violating and disrespectful. They are the victims.