why aren't we funding this....
-
This post did not contain any content.
Having the RIGHTS to our Own Bodies? That sounds like SOCIALISM!
-People who SUPPORT the Government buying a Stake in Intel!
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Didn't that already exist as the right to one's own image?
At least here in Spain such righ is mentioned in section 18.1 of the the Constitution from 1978 and was developed by a law in 1982 banning the capture, reproduction, use or publication by photograph, film, or any other means of a person's voice or image.
I would expect similar laws to exist in other countries. Having control of your own image and not allowing anyome to take your voice and image and make their own public use of them seems like a pretty basic right to not be regulated already before GenAI appeared.
Actually, targeting it just to GenAI and framing it as intellectual property or copyright sounds quite limited. Do you mean that as long as I don't use it for GenAI or use it for purposes not covered by copyright I can still publicly use your image in Denmark? I wouldn't expect so. The right one's own image is rooted in human dignity, privacy, and autonomy, which go beyond what a copyright law can protect.
-
In the U.S. the rights to our face, voice, and body will be available to us for a monthly subscription fee.
Just a license to the rights.
-
Just a license to the rights.
Sorry, that is unavailable now
-
Danish music?
Its mostly heavy metal
-
This post did not contain any content.
Scarlet Witch is so hot
-
This post did not contain any content.
Copyright only applies to created works. Wouldn't the owner of the copyright to you be...your parents?
-
I'd figure the scenario would be that YouTube would need to respect takedown request from people whose likeness had been appropriated, which isn't that absurd
Does have me wondering how YouTube would verify likeness, though. I could just find a video I don't like and claim to be a person in it. If all they need is a photo, I feel like that'd be easy to mock up. If they require government ID, that's getting into uncomfortable UK-esque ID verification territory.
-
Sooo... is this image copyright infringement?
There are just so many weird cases, based on the wording. Would Youtube need to scan for Danes within all uploads to check for copyright violations? Which is obviously impossible.
It can't be copyright. They just used the wrong term.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Wonderful. This is a law we need EU wide. Maybe we should add other private data to the list, too?
-
Sooo... is this image copyright infringement?
There are just so many weird cases, based on the wording. Would Youtube need to scan for Danes within all uploads to check for copyright violations? Which is obviously impossible.
Automated anything on such a grand scale is always a Bad Idea (tm). It’s better to just let copyright holders flag videos manually. Less likely to get weaponized that way. Of course, that’s anecdotal and purely my opinion.
-
IMO, better to get consumer protection laws in place early and refine them over time, than not at all.
The longer these things wait, the more time corpos have to get their influence in and either stop the efforts or water them down to be entirely ineffective.
Edit:
Don't forget to read about it.
https://www.globallawtoday.com/law/legal-news/2025/06/denmarks-groundbreaking-move-copyright-for-faces-and-voices/wrote last edited by [email protected]But rushed and incomplete bills can come with bad implementations that make them useless
-this post is known to the state of California to cause cancer
-
This post did not contain any content.
Goddamn stop stretching copyrights to handle things they were never meant to do. Just make new laws if needed.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I for one would like much less copyright law; it really hasn't been good to me.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'm a twin. Who owns the face? Implicit trust with two sigs required?
-
I for one would like much less copyright law; it really hasn't been good to me.
wrote last edited by [email protected]A tool used against you isn't always a bad tool; sometimes it needs to be used better.
-
Goddamn stop stretching copyrights to handle things they were never meant to do. Just make new laws if needed.
Copyright IS the law they'd make, like so many techbros reinventing the wheel poorly.
-
Automated anything on such a grand scale is always a Bad Idea (tm). It’s better to just let copyright holders flag videos manually. Less likely to get weaponized that way. Of course, that’s anecdotal and purely my opinion.
Automatic protection for people without them having to chase it in the courts is, somehow, a bad thing?
-
This post did not contain any content.
America would never do this. You don't have any rights here. We have the right to remain silent and thats about it
-
This post did not contain any content.
I admittedly don't understand how it has some how become easy for people, especially young people, to utilize this stuff. You can do image generation with a sufficiently strong GPU. But training requires power and VRAM.
As far as I can tell it's also limited to nVidia (except it appears all the image stuff for AMD works on Linux?) so it's expensive, you have to do so many things to set up simple image generation, and I imagine training for particular people (or anything) has to be harder to set up.
Otherwise deepfakes are just doing what Photoshop always did? Arguably Photoshop was a cheaper and easier method of creating them.
I have this feeling that generative AI is being used to normalize the idea of weaponizing it. "It took people's jobs! It made people naked and created libelous things!" Or as a means to crack down on hardware used for... Video games?
I could just be insane, but it always seems like when something seems bad, something worse is behind it.
