3 ms·
What a weird and misleading article. I assume it was written by that "deepfake detection company Sensity" to drum up business, but it certainly doesn't seem to
by fxtentacle 6y ago
What a weird and misleading article. I assume it was written by that "deepfake detection company Sensity" to drum up business, but it certainly doesn't seem to be well-researched.
As is, it is already illegal to use Emma Watson's "likeness" without her approval in pretty much every western country, including the EU and the Czech republic. "likeness" here means that the fake is good enough for regular people to recognize the actress.
For example, see Midler vs. Ford: http://rightofpublicity.com/pdf/cases/midler.pdf http://rightofpublicity.com/pdf/cases/midler.pdf
The article continues: “Until there is a strong reason for [porn websites] to try to take them down and to filter them, I strongly believe nothing is going to happen,” Patrini says.
Obviously. That "strong reason" is called a lawsuit and is pretty easy to organize. You might even sue for punitive damages and recoup your legal costs, meaning a celebrity successfully suing might be as expensive as $350,000 per video. I'd say that is a very strong reason to take things down, if - and apparently only if - the person requesting the takedown is following legal procedures.
- yasp 6y agoWould this also apply to real porn actresses who happen to look like Emma Watson?
- fxtentacle 6y agohttps://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/intellectual-property-law/intellectual-property-keyed-to-merges/state-intellectual-property-law-and-federal-preemption/midler-v-ford-motor-co/ https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/intellectual-property-la... "Under California law, intentional imitation of a celebrity’s distinctive and widely known voice for commercial purposes constitutes tortious misappropriation." Intentional is the key word here. So I presume that if you look like Emma Watson and go with your real name, you're fine. If you pretend to be Emma Watson, then it becomes infringing.
- controversy 6y agoBut pretending is key here too. Harry Potter porn? Here she’s pretending to be Emma Watson’s most famous role but not Emma.
- yasp 6y agoSo then ostensibly a deepfake that is clear that it's not actually Emma Watson (not pretending) and therefore only sharing a likeness would be legal?
- fxtentacle 6y agoDepends on your intention. If you produce the video with the intent to profit off her fame, and that will certainty be assumed if you use her name in the tags or keywords, then it's clearly illegal. But if the video says "this is a deepfake" and is not showing up in search results for her name, then it should be fine. Its just that in the latter case, probably nobody is going to watch it, so the discussion is then moot anyway.
- chr1 6y agoIn the latter case users could write the name in comments.