5 ms·

Face and possibly other body features are already enough for personal identification. I mean if a nude with Emma Watson's face is generated then adding Emma Wat

Face and possibly other body features are already enough for personal identification. I mean if a nude with Emma Watson's face is generated then adding Emma Watson's name to make the connection is already redundant. Anybody can recognize her face.

chii 3y ago
i think they meant fraudulent attribution rather than identification. For example, claiming such a nude emma watson photo is real means they are fraudulently misrepresenting her and thus, could tarnish her reputation etc.
- planede 3y ago
  Yeah, but even for fraudulent attribution it would be enough to state that the image is real, without spelling out the name. On the flip side spelling out "fake Emma Watson AI nude" wouldn't be fraudulent attribution. edit: But it looks like the js8 takes issue with the image being findable under the name as well, not necessarily with false attribution.
  - chii 3y ago
    Which is why fake Emma Watson images should not be illegal, as long as there's clear labeling (may be a requirement for watermarking for more permanence).
danielvaughn 3y ago
I believe we have “likeness” laws in the US that (in theory) should cover this. Though I haven’t looked into it - anyone know if I’m wrong or not?
js8 3y ago
Not really, because you cannot efficiently search by face and body features. IMHO publishing an image that looks like a famous actress, without indicating which actress it is, should be allowed. Sure, perhaps somebody could do an image search, but that's already more complicated process than synthesize your own fantasy. There are other edge cases, for example, should an image of "Princess Leia" be allowed to be shared under that title, when it implies the resemblance to the actress? I think the answer is probably yes, like with the body features, character name is not enough to identify a person. But it would not be allowed to mention Carrie Fisher in conjuction with such a picture, even by a 3rd party reposting the image. Edit: Maybe anybody can recognize Emma Watson (myself, I am not sure, not HP fan), but the issue is how you then use any human image generator without potentially infringing some random actress (effectively banning them)? There are definitely facial features I like and I cannot discern that I like them because I saw them in some actress whose name I have long since forgotten. The actresses tend to have wide variety of appearances, and there is not that many faces. It's gonna be a very contested rule. That's why I think it would be much easier to simply go after the name connection with the actress, rather than facial or bodily features.
- pjc50 3y ago
  > you cannot efficiently search by face and body features Yet. That feels like something an LLM trained on lots of images would be good at. It's also the basis of biometric identification. (Heck, google lens will give you celebrity identification about 10% of the time even though it's not designed for that. The Bing image search will try to identify the clothing and handbag in the photo instead so it can sell them to you)
  - js8 3y ago
    I think I addressed that in the next sentence. Doing an image search using a real image and deciding whether the fake image you find is good enough for your fantasy is already more complicated process than getting two images (one of your fantasy and the real one with the actress) and having AI synthesize them together. Or maybe you need to be more specific how do you imagine people would use the technology.
    - Hizonner 3y ago
      Get a normal, fully-clothed, completely SFW, maybe face-only shot of your target. Paste it into facial-image-similarity search engine that also supports constraining the output using text, and make the text "hardcore blah blah blah". If, as you assume, there are in fact hardcore blah blah blah images out there that look like they're of the target, the image search will find them. A search engine that does something like that doesn't seem too hard to build and will probably come along sometime... especially if the availability of images that you can't search for by pure text has created demand. In fact, it doesn't seem too farfetched for somebody to build a purely text-prompted image searcher that can accept "looks like $target" as part of the search string, and have it go find a picture of the face, then combine that with the rest of the query text. Again, if the images are out there, it'll find them. Not only do the images being out there create demand for the search system, but the search system then creates demand for people to compete in producing and publishing the "best" images. So you might very well find that the skill level for finding the images was even lower than the skill level for prompting them. And of course the shared images would automatically be visible to the target, as would a lot of link sharing and commmenting activity. Pretty much any publicly visible woman, and many publicly visible men, would end up being able to search for their own name and find a bunch of people sharing and talking about obvious fake images of them. Sharing the images really does have different consequences than just generating them, even if you don't put names on them. Also, I don't think there's any functional difference between allowing an image to be tagged as "Princess Leia" or "Hermione Granger" and allowing that image to be tagged as "Carrie Fisher" or "Emma Watson". That just means that the character name becomes a widely known, thinly veiled code for the actress name. I don't know what to do here, but I'm pretty convinced the particular line you want to draw doesn't make sense.
amelius 3y ago
> I mean if a nude with Emma Watson's face is generated then adding Emma Watson's name to make the connection is already redundant. Anybody can recognize her face. Sadly, they'll probably just prefix her last name with a "T" ...

chii 3y ago

i think they meant fraudulent attribution rather than identification. For example, claiming such a nude emma watson photo is real means they are fraudulently misrepresenting her and thus, could tarnish her reputation etc.

planede 3y ago
Yeah, but even for fraudulent attribution it would be enough to state that the image is real, without spelling out the name. On the flip side spelling out "fake Emma Watson AI nude" wouldn't be fraudulent attribution. edit: But it looks like the js8 takes issue with the image being findable under the name as well, not necessarily with false attribution.
- chii 3y ago
  Which is why fake Emma Watson images should not be illegal, as long as there's clear labeling (may be a requirement for watermarking for more permanence).

danielvaughn 3y ago

I believe we have “likeness” laws in the US that (in theory) should cover this. Though I haven’t looked into it - anyone know if I’m wrong or not?

js8 3y ago

Not really, because you cannot efficiently search by face and body features. IMHO publishing an image that looks like a famous actress, without indicating which actress it is, should be allowed. Sure, perhaps somebody could do an image search, but that's already more complicated process than synthesize your own fantasy. There are other edge cases, for example, should an image of "Princess Leia" be allowed to be shared under that title, when it implies the resemblance to the actress? I think the answer is probably yes, like with the body features, character name is not enough to identify a person. But it would not be allowed to mention Carrie Fisher in conjuction with such a picture, even by a 3rd party reposting the image. Edit: Maybe anybody can recognize Emma Watson (myself, I am not sure, not HP fan), but the issue is how you then use any human image generator without potentially infringing some random actress (effectively banning them)? There are definitely facial features I like and I cannot discern that I like them because I saw them in some actress whose name I have long since forgotten. The actresses tend to have wide variety of appearances, and there is not that many faces. It's gonna be a very contested rule. That's why I think it would be much easier to simply go after the name connection with the actress, rather than facial or bodily features.

pjc50 3y ago
> you cannot efficiently search by face and body features Yet. That feels like something an LLM trained on lots of images would be good at. It's also the basis of biometric identification. (Heck, google lens will give you celebrity identification about 10% of the time even though it's not designed for that. The Bing image search will try to identify the clothing and handbag in the photo instead so it can sell them to you)
- js8 3y ago
  I think I addressed that in the next sentence. Doing an image search using a real image and deciding whether the fake image you find is good enough for your fantasy is already more complicated process than getting two images (one of your fantasy and the real one with the actress) and having AI synthesize them together. Or maybe you need to be more specific how do you imagine people would use the technology.
  - Hizonner 3y ago
    Get a normal, fully-clothed, completely SFW, maybe face-only shot of your target. Paste it into facial-image-similarity search engine that also supports constraining the output using text, and make the text "hardcore blah blah blah". If, as you assume, there are in fact hardcore blah blah blah images out there that look like they're of the target, the image search will find them. A search engine that does something like that doesn't seem too hard to build and will probably come along sometime... especially if the availability of images that you can't search for by pure text has created demand. In fact, it doesn't seem too farfetched for somebody to build a purely text-prompted image searcher that can accept "looks like $target" as part of the search string, and have it go find a picture of the face, then combine that with the rest of the query text. Again, if the images are out there, it'll find them. Not only do the images being out there create demand for the search system, but the search system then creates demand for people to compete in producing and publishing the "best" images. So you might very well find that the skill level for finding the images was even lower than the skill level for prompting them. And of course the shared images would automatically be visible to the target, as would a lot of link sharing and commmenting activity. Pretty much any publicly visible woman, and many publicly visible men, would end up being able to search for their own name and find a bunch of people sharing and talking about obvious fake images of them. Sharing the images really does have different consequences than just generating them, even if you don't put names on them. Also, I don't think there's any functional difference between allowing an image to be tagged as "Princess Leia" or "Hermione Granger" and allowing that image to be tagged as "Carrie Fisher" or "Emma Watson". That just means that the character name becomes a widely known, thinly veiled code for the actress name. I don't know what to do here, but I'm pretty convinced the particular line you want to draw doesn't make sense.

amelius 3y ago

> I mean if a nude with Emma Watson's face is generated then adding Emma Watson's name to make the connection is already redundant. Anybody can recognize her face. Sadly, they'll probably just prefix her last name with a "T" ...