SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
on 27 Jun 07:15
nextcollapse
I like this
R00bot@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 27 Jun 07:40
nextcollapse
Crazy that this wasn’t already the standard years ago.
Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
on 27 Jun 10:13
collapse
It’s not the standard because it will likely have a LOT of unintended consequences.
How do you share evidence of police brutality if they can use copyright to take down the video? How do newspapers print pictures of people if they have to get the rightsholders permission first? How do we share photos of Elon Musk doing a Nazi salute if he can just sue every site that posts it for unauthorized use of his likeness?
Unless this has some extremely stringent and well written limitations, it has the potential to be a very bad idea.
I would assume those would fall under fair use of some kind, but you’re right that those fair use laws would need some scrutiny before implementing this. I’m still cautiously optimistic about it, but yeah if I was a lawmaker I’d be thinking hard about the potential misuses of it for sure.
Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
on 27 Jun 11:58
nextcollapse
What we’ve seen very clearly with fair use is that you end up being forced to defend it, as opposed to it being presumed. That means it’s very easy for a rightsholder with money to go after every use, fair or not, and force the user to spend time and money defending themselves (and also probably face a preliminary injunction that takes the image down until the case is over, which will often be after its newsworthy).
rob_t_firefly@lemmy.world
on 27 Jun 12:23
collapse
The big thing about Fair Use/Fair Dealing is it’s not automatic protection from any sort of consequence, lawsuit, or prosecution. It’s only a possible defense you can try using once you’re in court about it, and there are no guarantees it’ll work out for you.
Fair Use/Fair Dealing has never been the magic “you can’t do anything to me” protection many people seem to think it is. A judge has every ability to decide what you did wasn’t a fair use and judge against you.
This is not an argument against fair use, but against abuses of the fair use system. Everyone should be for reforming the system in such a way that it is not abused in this way, but that does not mean that we cannot implement a similar system for AI abuses.
tiramichu@sh.itjust.works
on 27 Jun 12:35
collapse
[The proposal] defines a deepfake as a very realistic digital representation of a person, including their appearance and voice.
The government said the new rules would not affect parodies and satire, which would still be permitted.
Seems like they’ve already thought about this, and the law will cover only digital clones, not human lookalikes - plus carve-outs for fair use satire.
RickyRigatoni@retrolemmy.com
on 27 Jun 12:40
collapse
So will this mean every professional photographer will have to share copyrights with the human subjects of photos?
justineie_bobeanie@lemmy.world
on 28 Jun 18:13
collapse
It doesn’t seem to be the case. As far as I can tell, the law only covers realistic digital imitations of a person’s likeness (deepfakes), with an exception for parody and satire. If you appear in public that is effectively license for someone to capture your image.
threaded - newest
I like this
Crazy that this wasn’t already the standard years ago.
It’s not the standard because it will likely have a LOT of unintended consequences.
How do you share evidence of police brutality if they can use copyright to take down the video? How do newspapers print pictures of people if they have to get the rightsholders permission first? How do we share photos of Elon Musk doing a Nazi salute if he can just sue every site that posts it for unauthorized use of his likeness?
Unless this has some extremely stringent and well written limitations, it has the potential to be a very bad idea.
I would assume those would fall under fair use of some kind, but you’re right that those fair use laws would need some scrutiny before implementing this. I’m still cautiously optimistic about it, but yeah if I was a lawmaker I’d be thinking hard about the potential misuses of it for sure.
What we’ve seen very clearly with fair use is that you end up being forced to defend it, as opposed to it being presumed. That means it’s very easy for a rightsholder with money to go after every use, fair or not, and force the user to spend time and money defending themselves (and also probably face a preliminary injunction that takes the image down until the case is over, which will often be after its newsworthy).
The big thing about Fair Use/Fair Dealing is it’s not automatic protection from any sort of consequence, lawsuit, or prosecution. It’s only a possible defense you can try using once you’re in court about it, and there are no guarantees it’ll work out for you.
Fair Use/Fair Dealing has never been the magic “you can’t do anything to me” protection many people seem to think it is. A judge has every ability to decide what you did wasn’t a fair use and judge against you.
This is not an argument against fair use, but against abuses of the fair use system. Everyone should be for reforming the system in such a way that it is not abused in this way, but that does not mean that we cannot implement a similar system for AI abuses.
Good call. 👍
Can’t wait for the first pair of twins to sue each other.
Or just doppelgangers.
Can’t wait for celebrities to sue lookalikes
Fair use or something
Seems like they’ve already thought about this, and the law will cover only digital clones, not human lookalikes - plus carve-outs for fair use satire.
So will this mean every professional photographer will have to share copyrights with the human subjects of photos?
It doesn’t seem to be the case. As far as I can tell, the law only covers realistic digital imitations of a person’s likeness (deepfakes), with an exception for parody and satire. If you appear in public that is effectively license for someone to capture your image.