2 ms·

But I think if you photoshopped someone into an advertising image in a way that made them appear to endorse your product you would probably very quickly be hit

But I think if you photoshopped someone into an advertising image in a way that made them appear to endorse your product you would probably very quickly be hit (and lose?) a lawsuit right? So I’m increasingly of the opinion that it’s not the tool that needs to be regulated, but the use of the output. Clone voices? Fine. Clone voices for deceptive or commercial purposes without the person’s consent? Not fine. But then how do you prove it, what is deceptive, what is non-consenting voice cloning, yadda yadda. I imagine we will shortly see a raft of YouTubers adding “do not clone my voice” notices to their channels like the Facebook “by posting this notice you remove all rights for Facebook to steal the copyright in your photos” spam posts that were doing the rounds at one point.

Dalewyn 2y ago
>you would probably very quickly be hit (and lose?) a lawsuit right? A lawsuit from a private individual or business entity is very different from the federal, state, or municipal government attempting to silence you, the latter is prohibited by the First Amendment. I find it appalling that this needs to be spelled out.
- saaaaaam 2y ago
  I wasn’t replying to the comment about the First Amendment, I was responding to a (what I assume was a somewhat satirical) comment about making photoshop illegal. Fully aware of the difference between a civil lawsuit vs government lawsuit though so you can pop your italics back in the box and rest easy!