why aren't we funding this....
-
This post did not contain any content.
Now if only Denmark didn’t steal indigenous people’s babies because they were victims of a crime and/or couldn’t cite the capital of Sudan. If you don’t know what I’m talking about don’t search it unless you are prepared for some new awful things to feel horrible about.
-
Wouldn’t matter, because in America all the big IT companies (Apple, Meta, Amazon etc.) would promptly add a line to their EULAs stating that by using their service, you grant them an irrevocable, transferable lifetime licence to your copyright.
Pretty sure that These Lines in eulas would not be valid.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I think the history doesn't support this super well; especially not for the media you mention.
Before the printing press, all creative work was expensive without copyright, and so typical folk could only access what they and their community could make. There were still artists in communities, but they were closer to hobbyists (see the traveling minstrel, playing/reading/singing for relatively cheap. The masses knew Beowulf). You still see some of this today, with say yard art made by a neighbor (either on the side, for cost, or in their retirement). In short, art was not just for the rich, but you could argue good art was. This remains true today regardless of copyright for artwork where materials are expensive/scarce.
In the modern day, most of the art I experience is mass copied. Materials are cheap, eg copying an mp3 is essentially free. If there were no copyright, we would see either the results of amateurs and students (like we do on sound-cloud, for eg), or we would still have patrons (and the resulting products would often be leaked to the masses). Note that the printing press was out for awhile before copyright appeared in many countries. The inability to copyright textbooks in Germany made for an industrial boom. Publishing houses still produced new works essentially the same way that Youtubers deal with copy-cats; a better experience for patrons to fund the cheap stuff (which competes at cost with the copies).
So while I buy that the quality of art might drop without copyright, I don't think it drops enough for me to be very sad. And the added accessibility of academia, education, and cultural icons would be amazing.
-
This is a bit weird since normally copyright applies to works that someone has created. Typically they also have to involve creativity. For example, you can't protect a database with copyright, nor can you protect the rules of a game. But, you can protect the text used to explain the rules since that is something creative.
Your voice and body aren't typically seen as creative works. They're just the result of a genetic lottery played by your parents. But, I can vaguely see how you might be able to twist the typical rules to make it count. For example, people decide on hair styles and grooming. They choose their clothing and sometimes make-up. There is a creative process there and their body is the canvas. With that kind of concept of a body being a "creative work", any photograph of that body becomes a derivative work, as would any AI version of that person.
But, this seems like the wrong approach to me. If someone has a copyright on their body, then under typical copyright rules, they can assign their copyright to someone else. Most likely, a model would have to assign the right to her body's copyright to a modelling agency. After she did that, she couldn't even take a selfie because she'd be infringing on the modelling agency's copyright.
Privacy rules make more sense, look at Germany's photographic privacy laws for example.
If the focus is on copyright, then if someone sneaks a camera into a changing room, they can only be charged with copyright violations. If they give the photos away for free, then in many cases the punishment for copyright infringement is minimal. But, if the laws are about protecting privacy, then it doesn't matter if it was a commercial copyright infringement or if it was simply collecting someone's nude photo for personal use. The issue isn't the copyright infringement, it's the privacy violation.
I can only assume that this has to do with international law. Copyright is pretty well protected and has a huge lobby behind it. Whereas nobody actually seems to care about privacy.
-
I can only assume that this has to do with international law. Copyright is pretty well protected and has a huge lobby behind it. Whereas nobody actually seems to care about privacy.
You might think that, but try using Google's Street View in Germany. Almost the entire country is unavailable due to their privacy laws.
-
This post did not contain any content.
When I was a kid and wanted to see porn of a certain person or celebrity, i found a look a like porn actress like god intended!
-
This post did not contain any content.
Great in theory but seems almost impossible to enforce outside of their own country. Should be interesting to see how it works out though.
-
I'm a twin. Who owns the face? Implicit trust with two sigs required?
I think there are no twins in Denmark
-
You might think that, but try using Google's Street View in Germany. Almost the entire country is unavailable due to their privacy laws.
that was the case a couple years back. Germany is now pretty well-covered by Street View
-
Just a license to the rights.
Slapping that AGPL-3.0 on my body.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
WoW, for me it was already a default... what happens with twins?
-
This post did not contain any content.
What happen with twins? As others say, privacy law approach is better than this...
-
This post did not contain any content.
Sounds like this is not true as written.
A copyright does not attach to a natural thing. It attaches to an original expression of a human author fixed in a tangible medium.
A photo or a painting of a face can have copyright protection, a face cannot.
A recording or mix including a voice can have copyright protection, a voice cannot. -
What happen with twins? As others say, privacy law approach is better than this...
Parents have to decide which twin is the official release
-
Sounds like this is not true as written.
A copyright does not attach to a natural thing. It attaches to an original expression of a human author fixed in a tangible medium.
A photo or a painting of a face can have copyright protection, a face cannot.
A recording or mix including a voice can have copyright protection, a voice cannot.I found something more informative over here:
With the new s. 73 a, a proposal is made to introduce a ban on deepfakes of natural persons' personal, physical characteristics. Personal, physical characteristics are to be understood as the traits and features that define a person and are unique to the individual, such as appearance, voice, movements, etc.
What is special about the proposed provision is that, unlike other provisions of the Copyright Act, it does not require the existence of a copyright-protected "work" or "performance", but the protection rather covers all natural persons. This applies regardless of whether they are artists or creators in the legal sense.
Thus, the protection comprises the unique characteristics of individuals, which are closely linked to one's person. For this reason, it is also proposed that consent to public disclosure must be given individually, and the area cannot be covered by a collective licence agreement.
The ban only applies to the public disclosure of deepfakes, meaning that there is nothing preventing deepfakes from being made available within the private sphere – such as at a private party or in relation to the right of reproduction.
-
At least in Germany it has been a thing for decades. It's called "Recht am eigenen Bild" - "right to your own image". Meaning nobody can just take a photo or recording of you and post it online or use it in advertising or so without your approval.
This is the law in all EU member states. What the article is discussing is different. Technically, a deepfake of you is not a photograph of you, unless you can reliably prove that a photograph of you was used to create it. Of course, it had to be, but a court will never accept "that's how deepfakes work" as evidence.
The new Danish law is forbidding anyone from making anything that closely resembles you, meaning nobody can make a deepfake of you, regardless of whether or not it's proven that a real picture of you was used. Just like you cannot create anything that closely resembles any other copyright-protected content, regardless of whether or not you use any of the original creator's material in the process.
-
I can only assume that this has to do with international law. Copyright is pretty well protected and has a huge lobby behind it. Whereas nobody actually seems to care about privacy.
More like they want to push copyright enforcement/expansion by using something people care about. Similar to "think of the children".
They did try to push copyright as a solution to revenge porn, in effect pushing a private alternative justice system based on DMCAs and payment processor blackmail.
We should get bespoke laws to deal with deepfake problems.
-
This post did not contain any content.
People will still create deepfakes (you know what I mean, lol). Although they'd need to be stupid to share them online.
-
When I was a kid and wanted to see porn of a certain person or celebrity, i found a look a like porn actress like god intended!
My cousin for a few years dated a woman who was a dead ringer for Angelina Jolie and was actually named Evalena Marie. She moved to LA and was trying to be a serious actress but never made it big because everyone assumed she was a porn actress taking advantage of her similarity to Jolie.
-
When I was a kid and wanted to see porn of a certain person or celebrity, i found a look a like porn actress like god intended!
i mean, we probably do it unconsciously when watching porn anyway.
