why aren't we funding this....
-
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.
-
America would never do this. You don't have any rights here. We have the right to remain silent and thats about it
You have the right, but will you have the ability when the water starts to pour?
-
You have the right, but will you have the ability when the water starts to pour?
You mean the water we polluted with industrial waste.?? That water? Or the metaphorical water that they will use to waterboard us with to force fake confessions??
-
Sorry, that is unavailable now
Ooh, you can’t acquire the rights to your face in the app, or the website. You need to book an appointment at the secretary of state and bring at least two people who witnessed your birth.
-
You mean the water we polluted with industrial waste.?? That water? Or the metaphorical water that they will use to waterboard us with to force fake confessions??
No they mean my sweet golden nectar. Open up for the pee pee train.
-
I for one would like much less copyright law; it really hasn't been good to me.
So you’ve never enjoyed art, music, books, films or TV? Ever?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Feel like this more than just deepfakes toox would it apply to assholes recording you in public without the person’s consent?
-
I'm a twin. Who owns the face? Implicit trust with two sigs required?
Ursula Buffay?
-
So you’ve never enjoyed art, music, books, films or TV? Ever?
People made art before copyright.
I think you suggest a fallacy: just because a law is related to a thing, doesn't mean the law makes/helps/enhances the thing.
-
No they mean my sweet golden nectar. Open up for the pee pee train.
Ain't no way this was written whilst sober
-
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/IMO, better to get laws in place early and refine them over time, than not at all.
So... Move fast and break things?
-
Copyright only applies to created works. Wouldn't the owner of the copyright to you be...your parents?
Nah because I'm a transformitive work. My parents didn't make these gainz.
-
People made art before copyright.
I think you suggest a fallacy: just because a law is related to a thing, doesn't mean the law makes/helps/enhances the thing.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Before copyright, art was the domain of the rich, the amateur, or those with patronage. Copyright allows artists to make a living from their work.
