3 ms·
As much as I agree with you about those, GP mentioned something more specific: >but what people choose to draw, imagine, photoshop, or deepfake for non-commerc
by claudiawerner 4y ago
As much as I agree with you about those, GP mentioned something more specific:
>but what people choose to draw, imagine, photoshop, or deepfake for non-commercial use is their business
And although I'm sure that one can harass or incite violence or defame with artwork, whether that means artwork of the imagination as artwork should fall into that category is dubious. An instructive example here concerns fantasy versus 'hate speech' and where to draw that line while maintaining maximum freedom and a polite society.
I don't think society as particularly 'safer' in the cases of defamation and copyright infringement being prohibited; and when it comes to fiction I'm even more dubious, given that fiction is known to be able to produce statements we can more easily take as fantasy.
- AlecSchueler 4y agoI don't get what commercialism changes about it. If i make deepfake images of your wife being forced into sex, being beaten, crying and screaming, and then I distribute them online free of charge is that really harmless just because I don't profit from it?
- claudiawerner 4y agoNot at all; but it does test where 'harm' lies or should lie in legal system, leaving aside the human sensation. I would not like that to be legal, however that's irrelevant to the question of the art in itself. I'm not making a commercial argument here, I'm saying that these things aren't adequately covered by the 'bad' laws of defamation and copyright infringement. In your example, I don't think I'd have a problem with the creation of the images if they're not distributed, but on a macro scale, if I put aside my ethical concerns with the proliferation of patriarchy, it's worth considering whether "anyone can do anything with images" would have such an effect if my wife were only one targeted among millions.