why aren't we funding this....
-
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Nice, though DACH has this since long ago. And denmark is already added, they're quick.
-
Pretty sure that These Lines in eulas would not be valid.
In a nation with a functional judicial system, absolutely - but I wouldn’t put it past the current US Supreme Court to set another precedent.
-
I think you might be overestimating cooperation between these companies, but it's definitely a valid concern.
Probably, yes - but in a race for as much data as possible to try and feed their LLM models, I wouldn’t put it past them.
-
In a nation with a functional judicial system, absolutely - but I wouldn’t put it past the current US Supreme Court to set another precedent.
Good that a denmark is not Part of the US. And that if US Company Wants to operate in another country they have to follow their rules
-
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.
I would love to know more about that. Which search terms should i use?
Is there a chance you have a link to some sources? -
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.
Are you talking about the "Little danes experiment"?
That was in the 50s and Denmark officially apologized to Greenland en 2020 (following pressure from the Greenlandic officials).Horrific thing that happened. Idk where being a victim of a crime or knowing the capital of sudan fits in that story tho.
-
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.
The German one is supposed to also cover recreations like paintings or photoshops, so it should cover AI stuff as well.
-
This post did not contain any content.
YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A FACE
-
This post did not contain any content.
Random danish lady vs modern westoid supermodel be like:
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
Good that a denmark is not Part of the US. And that if US Company Wants to operate in another country they have to follow their rules
My original comment was mostly in reference to OP’s “why aren’t we funding this”, with the assumption that they were from the US.
I am fully aware that Denmark is not part of the US; in fact - their Queen Consort is actually one of us (Aussies, that is).
-
This post did not contain any content.
AI: oh no! anyway
-
This post did not contain any content.
When did this pass? I see news stories about the law being proposed a month ago, but nothing about its passage.
-
Parents have to decide which twin is the official release
The other can be seen as a parody or a related work
-
This post did not contain any content.
I guess the age of influencer is now coming to an end. No where can be considered ‘public’ if copyright faces show up in the background.expectation of privacy is back on the menu.
-
YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A FACE
But titties, pussy and dick... Heck yeah!
-
I guess the age of influencer is now coming to an end. No where can be considered ‘public’ if copyright faces show up in the background.expectation of privacy is back on the menu.
No this says you can't create an AI version of you in one county not that you have any right to whatever happens in public in any of them which is already a patcgwork of laws but which is generally fairly unregulated.
-
Great in theory but seems almost impossible to enforce outside of their own country. Should be interesting to see how it works out though.
This is what crossed my mind. This seems like the kind of thing we all know would be nice but enforcing it is going to be really tricky.
What happens when one identical twin gives deep fake permission? The other implicitly has it created as well despite not giving permission. That is just what I thought of in 20 seconds, I am sure there are plenty of other examples.
It will be interesting to see how the enforcement goes with this. I suspect it will primarily be used in small one-off cases and not something at large.
-
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.
Requiring proof of identification when you are taking legal action is significantly different from requiring proof of ID at all times.
Considering how lazy YouTube is about such things they'd probably just take your word for it and force the video creator to prove it isn't you in order to get their ad revenue back.
