3 ms·

>put me in porn of your choosing. Oh, I see the confusion. We're talking about synthetic images in this discussion. We're not talking about actual explicit pho

>put me in porn of your choosing. Oh, I see the confusion. We're talking about synthetic images in this discussion. We're not talking about actual explicit photos or video of someone. So in this scenario "you" wouldn't be involved at all. Although it has been long established that using actual photos and swapping faces, etc, is perfectly legal. Just because the tools are slightly faster than photoshop does not make this a new thing. if anything, the fact that no actual photos are involved makes deepfakes even less objectionable and clearly not victimizing anyone. Technical ignorance, willful or accidental, is no excuse for advocating these extreme viewpoints in which you demand use of force against actual human people in situations where no one is harmed. Calls for organized violence like this are not acceptable.

polotics 2y ago
maybe a caveat here. Also: citation needed! Using photos is only perfectly legal if this use is within the licence agreement of the photos. as I understand it using a picture of somebody you took on the street is allowed in the sense that you can print this picture unmodified that's public domain. However taking this picture you took on the streets and make a deep fake porn out of the picture of that person is definitely not within the licence that public pictures grant you. if you take a picture of my daughter riding her bike and make a fake porn out of it with her face, don't worry I'm on your case... Same for any picture taken by a paparazzi of some prominent figure actress for example these are all licenced, good luck with the lawyers... https://finance.yahoo.com/news/scarlett-johansson-sues-ai-generator-175439964.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANFxfhbQc2WneizwdelNXhinF00HUA0RAbuVaoPn-l4nBCznP0AGA_rwMXKlhe6TPCJ9Bz0x0O0PhznKTzT_b0n8Uw4bc0dS5vdk-6opJjjI3Cp-35hxvN2D_D5-Q_DnNCVNRpD74R4Zt1kQutWDpLj0zivso6XzCoPpt5plbU_l https://finance.yahoo.com/news/scarlett-johansson-sues-ai-ge...
- superkuh 2y ago
  You're implicit assumption of commercial use here makes everything you've said invalid in most use cases discussed in this thread.

polotics 2y ago

maybe a caveat here. Also: citation needed! Using photos is only perfectly legal if this use is within the licence agreement of the photos. as I understand it using a picture of somebody you took on the street is allowed in the sense that you can print this picture unmodified that's public domain. However taking this picture you took on the streets and make a deep fake porn out of the picture of that person is definitely not within the licence that public pictures grant you. if you take a picture of my daughter riding her bike and make a fake porn out of it with her face, don't worry I'm on your case... Same for any picture taken by a paparazzi of some prominent figure actress for example these are all licenced, good luck with the lawyers... https://finance.yahoo.com/news/scarlett-johansson-sues-ai-generator-175439964.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANFxfhbQc2WneizwdelNXhinF00HUA0RAbuVaoPn-l4nBCznP0AGA_rwMXKlhe6TPCJ9Bz0x0O0PhznKTzT_b0n8Uw4bc0dS5vdk-6opJjjI3Cp-35hxvN2D_D5-Q_DnNCVNRpD74R4Zt1kQutWDpLj0zivso6XzCoPpt5plbU_l https://finance.yahoo.com/news/scarlett-johansson-sues-ai-ge...

superkuh 2y ago
You're implicit assumption of commercial use here makes everything you've said invalid in most use cases discussed in this thread.