4 ms·

I'm only saying that in the case where there is no one to deny it, that it should be allowed.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> only saying that in the case where there is no one to deny it, that it should be allowed I don’t see a compelling argument for this. Not for actors. (I could see a case when it comes to great thinkers.)
- throwaway81523 2y ago
  Is this supposed to include historical stage actors William Shakespeare (who was also well known as a poet and playwright)? He has certainly been portrayed in movies by plenty of human actors, so why not by AI? I'd think it should be covered by the usual likeness laws. If this new law is limited specifically to movie actors, it sounds like more Hollywood protectionism.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > has certainly been portrayed in movies by plenty of human actors, so why not by AI? Portrayal isn't replication. > If this new law is limited specifically to movie actors The article addresses this.
    - lsaferite 2y ago
      > Portrayal isn't replication Please explain the difference in the light of this thread.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        Portrayal is artistic depiction. It’s plainly fiction. Paintings are the canonical portrait. Replication seeks to blur the line between fiction and non-fiction. We treat photos taken without permission differently from paintings because of that closeness to reality. Granted, part of the relevant debate is where is the line between these endeavours. But we clearly recognise it, even if it’s increasingly a social construct. (Note the severely emotional reaction some in this thread are having to your proposal. Likeness is a deeply personal element that realistic non-fictional depiction, versus artistic overtly fictional depiction, triggers.)
hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
You don’t own the ip rights of my face unless I sign them over and you pay me royalties. If it’s not legal to impersonate someone while they’re alive, why would it be okay when they’re dead? Assumed consent is not okay, I’m pretty sure in some cultures even showing images of the dead is offensive, let alone impersonating them.
- autoexec 2y ago
  > If it’s not legal to impersonate someone while they’re alive, why would it be okay when they’re dead? The point is it is legal to impersonate someone while they’re alive - if you ask their permission and they grant it. Why should all future media be forbidden from ever portraying a famous or important person after there is no one left to give or deny that permission or even care if anyone did?
  - hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
    If you build a Time Machine, go back in time and ask them permission, then it would be legal? You can’t assume consent just because someone isn’t around to say no. And AI impersonated imagery is not the same as someone who is clearly a different actor from portraying someone. If this is your hangup, use an actor and don’t use AI?
    - autoexec 2y ago
      > You can’t assume consent just because someone isn’t around to say no. The dead are devoid of a will to act against, so consent doesn't even meaningfully enter into it. There is respect for the still living family to be considered certainly, but when no one left alive cares, then what is the harm? Why should it matter if it's a digital actor (AI) or a human one? Why does your idea of the "dead's consent" stop being relevant if a person is portraying them without asking vs using an AI without asking? It seems like your issue has a lot more to do with an objection to AI conceptually than how the dead person feels about it. Consider that this would prevent AI from being used in a portrayal of someone even in cases where the actor/person, if they were still living, would be thrilled with the idea.

> only saying that in the case where there is no one to deny it, that it should be allowed I don’t see a compelling argument for this. Not for actors. (I could see a case when it comes to great thinkers.)

throwaway81523 2y ago
Is this supposed to include historical stage actors William Shakespeare (who was also well known as a poet and playwright)? He has certainly been portrayed in movies by plenty of human actors, so why not by AI? I'd think it should be covered by the usual likeness laws. If this new law is limited specifically to movie actors, it sounds like more Hollywood protectionism.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > has certainly been portrayed in movies by plenty of human actors, so why not by AI? Portrayal isn't replication. > If this new law is limited specifically to movie actors The article addresses this.
  - lsaferite 2y ago
    > Portrayal isn't replication Please explain the difference in the light of this thread.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      Portrayal is artistic depiction. It’s plainly fiction. Paintings are the canonical portrait. Replication seeks to blur the line between fiction and non-fiction. We treat photos taken without permission differently from paintings because of that closeness to reality. Granted, part of the relevant debate is where is the line between these endeavours. But we clearly recognise it, even if it’s increasingly a social construct. (Note the severely emotional reaction some in this thread are having to your proposal. Likeness is a deeply personal element that realistic non-fictional depiction, versus artistic overtly fictional depiction, triggers.)

hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago

You don’t own the ip rights of my face unless I sign them over and you pay me royalties. If it’s not legal to impersonate someone while they’re alive, why would it be okay when they’re dead? Assumed consent is not okay, I’m pretty sure in some cultures even showing images of the dead is offensive, let alone impersonating them.

autoexec 2y ago
> If it’s not legal to impersonate someone while they’re alive, why would it be okay when they’re dead? The point is it is legal to impersonate someone while they’re alive - if you ask their permission and they grant it. Why should all future media be forbidden from ever portraying a famous or important person after there is no one left to give or deny that permission or even care if anyone did?
- hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
  If you build a Time Machine, go back in time and ask them permission, then it would be legal? You can’t assume consent just because someone isn’t around to say no. And AI impersonated imagery is not the same as someone who is clearly a different actor from portraying someone. If this is your hangup, use an actor and don’t use AI?
  - autoexec 2y ago
    > You can’t assume consent just because someone isn’t around to say no. The dead are devoid of a will to act against, so consent doesn't even meaningfully enter into it. There is respect for the still living family to be considered certainly, but when no one left alive cares, then what is the harm? Why should it matter if it's a digital actor (AI) or a human one? Why does your idea of the "dead's consent" stop being relevant if a person is portraying them without asking vs using an AI without asking? It seems like your issue has a lot more to do with an objection to AI conceptually than how the dead person feels about it. Consider that this would prevent AI from being used in a portrayal of someone even in cases where the actor/person, if they were still living, would be thrilled with the idea.