5 ms·
Framing it as a "right to publicity" argument is interesting, though it invites comparison to celebrity impersonators which exist and don't seem to infringe. A
by hiatus 3y ago
Framing it as a "right to publicity" argument is interesting, though it invites comparison to celebrity impersonators which exist and don't seem to infringe.
A relevant opinion:
> The purpose of the portrayal in question must be examined to determine if it predominantly serves a social function valued by the protection of free speech. If the portrayal mainly serves the purpose of contributing information, which is not false or defamatory, to the public debate of political or social issues or of providing the free expression of creative talent which contributes to society’s cultural enrichment, then the portray generally will be immune from liability. If, however, the portrayal functions primarily as a means of commercial exploitation, then such immunity will not be granted.
from Estate of Presley v. Russen via https://ripl.law.uic.edu/news-stories/celebrity-impersonation-and-the-right-of-publicity/ https://ripl.law.uic.edu/news-stories/celebrity-impersonatio...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kube-system 3y agoI think the biggest difference is that impersonators are using humanly creative acting skills, whereas this tool's model is built mechanically from the original artist's recordings.
- dehrmann 3y agoHow is what an AI does any different?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kube-system 3y agoThe degree of human involvement and human creativity involved is a very critical part of copyright law.
- sandworm101 3y agoThat degree generally being the fine line between "none" and "some". The simple act of holding the camera, even if you don't really know where you are pointing it, can qualify resulting images for copyright protection. But is the monkey at the zoo grabs your camera and snaps a pic, no copyright for anyone. So for an AI-generated song, a court will probably be able to hang its hat on the smallest of human input in the lyric or musical process.
- kube-system 3y agoYou're confusing different concepts: "qualification for copyright eligibility" (what you're referring to) and "qualification for fair use" and "qualification for (un)authorized use of likeness/personality" ... are all different things, with different laws, and different standards.
- glimshe 3y agoWhat is the difference between human creativity and something that looks just like human creativity?
- bobthepanda 3y agoHuman authorship is legally protected and the other is not, whether that’s an AI or a bunch of monkeys on typewriters.
- dehrmann 3y agoAren't we all just a bunch of glorified monkeys on glorified typewriters?
- sbarre 3y agoNot according to the law, and that's what is being discussed?
- ensignavenger 3y ago
- SkyBelow 3y agoWhat if there is an AI built from the best impersonators without the input of the original? What if someone goes through enough effort to even get them to agree for their voice to be used as such?
- kube-system 3y agoThen there's certainly no DMCA argument, but the above commenter's citation about publicity rights might still be an open question.
- squarefoot 3y agoImpersonators are recognizable, and assuming an identical one can be found, it would require a lot of time, during which the most money would have been already squeezed from the artist repertoire. In contrast, they're probably aware that it's just a matter of time until AI technology will allow to build an identical copy with new seemingly authentic material in one day or less. They're fearing the day powerful AI can be freely used by everyone in uncontrolled way, so that piracy won't even be necessary anymore, because one could simply ask to their local AI terminal: "hey, wake me up tomorrow at 7.30 with Sinatra singing Back in the USSR, then play Pretty Vacant by the Sex Pistols, but sung by Amy Winehouse, while I'm having breakfast". Digital models of artists will become the new big thing that day.