3 ms·

Australia has fair use copyright provisions, as well as parody. They are not protected via the same mechanism or via the same wording as the US. Now this said,

Australia has fair use copyright provisions, as well as parody. They are not protected via the same mechanism or via the same wording as the US. Now this said, no, this is not another chink in the armour. There is little to no fair use or parody that would withstand prosecution when it comes to deep fake pornography. One could try to make the argument that, for example, a media company may create a deep fake pornographic video for a skit. However, this is both in bad taste, flies afoul of content deceny laws, and the 'artwork' can readily be taken out of context and distributed as pornography in its own right. Australia has been quite good, if a bit slow, at enacting considered legislation to protect against exploitation of the individual. Our conservative facebook and sov cit crowd constantly bellyache about freedom of speech, forgetting that Australia does not have freedom of speech provisions, but rather a set of legal precedents, case law and various legal interpretations which provide similar, but with an ability for interpretation to enact various protections. They're very difficult to circumvent, but are actively used for things like this by governments of the day. Also, unlike the US, our justices are not elected by politicians, and they must not be aligned to a political party. So parliament could go rogue, but the laws would be challenged and shot down if in the opinion of the court they were illegal or eroded other legally decided precedent or interpretations.

roenxi 2y ago
> Also, unlike the US, our justices are not elected by politicians I'm pretty sure in practice they are elected by politicians. How do you think they are they appointed? They aren't elected directly and the alternatives I can come up with to political appointment are outrageous affronts to democracy.
- defrost 2y ago
  In Australian states and in Australian federal courts the process is similar; to become a judge at level {X} there's a merit bar to pass (prior skills | qualifications) and prospective candidates apply for the position when vacancies appear (like other jobs). The applicants are assessed by state or federal peer committees who give advice to state or federal attorney generals (head lawyer) which is a qualified position held by someone who is elected (elected to represent a district, not elected to be attorney general). The Attorney General appoints Judges who apply and are qualified, those appointments can be appealed on various grounds. Eg: In the State of Western Australia: https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/McGowan-Labor-Government/Two-new-Judges-appointed-to-bolster-the-District-Court-20230502 https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/McGowan-La... 2 x District Court judges appointed by Quiggles : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quigley_(politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quigley_(politician) who's quite the chap, he was a lawyer for the police for a fair while until he turned and gave evidence on police corruption. In the Federal sphere: https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/courts/judicial-appointments https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/courts/judicial-appointme...
  - roenxi 2y ago
    Sure, but that is over-complicating it a bit for the purposes of what anakaine wrote. An A.G. is a politician with the current executive government and consults with same group of people who organise the whips for legislative votes when making decisions. That isn't differentiating the process from the US except in a cosmetic fashion. If a judge could get the whips' support in the US for a vote then they can get the AG's support in Australia through the same channels. If 51% of the ALP party room disagrees with Quigley's choices he is going to make different choices. Although there is also an argument that it'd be easier to get partisan results because only the AG has to be shameless and he is already selected as someone deeply embedded in politics. If there is a difference I assume it would be who is allowed to be in the candidate pool.

roenxi 2y ago

> Also, unlike the US, our justices are not elected by politicians I'm pretty sure in practice they are elected by politicians. How do you think they are they appointed? They aren't elected directly and the alternatives I can come up with to political appointment are outrageous affronts to democracy.

defrost 2y ago
In Australian states and in Australian federal courts the process is similar; to become a judge at level {X} there's a merit bar to pass (prior skills | qualifications) and prospective candidates apply for the position when vacancies appear (like other jobs). The applicants are assessed by state or federal peer committees who give advice to state or federal attorney generals (head lawyer) which is a qualified position held by someone who is elected (elected to represent a district, not elected to be attorney general). The Attorney General appoints Judges who apply and are qualified, those appointments can be appealed on various grounds. Eg: In the State of Western Australia: https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/McGowan-Labor-Government/Two-new-Judges-appointed-to-bolster-the-District-Court-20230502 https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/McGowan-La... 2 x District Court judges appointed by Quiggles : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quigley_(politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quigley_(politician) who's quite the chap, he was a lawyer for the police for a fair while until he turned and gave evidence on police corruption. In the Federal sphere: https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/courts/judicial-appointments https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/courts/judicial-appointme...
- roenxi 2y ago
  Sure, but that is over-complicating it a bit for the purposes of what anakaine wrote. An A.G. is a politician with the current executive government and consults with same group of people who organise the whips for legislative votes when making decisions. That isn't differentiating the process from the US except in a cosmetic fashion. If a judge could get the whips' support in the US for a vote then they can get the AG's support in Australia through the same channels. If 51% of the ALP party room disagrees with Quigley's choices he is going to make different choices. Although there is also an argument that it'd be easier to get partisan results because only the AG has to be shameless and he is already selected as someone deeply embedded in politics. If there is a difference I assume it would be who is allowed to be in the candidate pool.