why aren't we funding this....
-
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.
-
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.
Copyright is pretty well protected
Meanwhile Facebook downloaded Anna's Archive without any problem.
-
You are wonderful for bringing attention to this, and citizens of Denmark (all of EU?) should fight back. A difference is that the item you linked above is proposed versus the thread topic being supposedly voted on. I can't quickly find links to Denmark equivalents of US house/senate websites with voting info, probably due to language, so I can't prove the above -- but other reporting supports that Danish citizens own the copyright to their person by default now by law, but encryption backdoors are not law.
I highly, forcefully recommend that anyone who is able to do so push back against this proposal or any similar ones. For any "good-guy" who can break encryption, there will be thousands of bad-guys who can break it too. A back-door fundamentally breaks encryption. Technically, a service provider who does end-to-end encryption without a back-door simply cannot inspect content, as that is the whole fucking point. A law like this will only ensure that such providers cannot exist.
I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but for anyone even remotely swayed by the 'but children' aspect of this. This kind of access to your life is only wanted by people/companies/governments who want to be able to harvest your data for power or profit. They need an excuse to get their foot in the door and will rip it open the second they get a chance and invade your whole life for advertising dollars or to find political dissidents. "Give them an inch and they will take a mile", by imperial units.
Fight this shit.
-
Random danish lady vs modern westoid supermodel be like:
wrote last edited by [email protected]What does this mean? Can you translate it from terminally online brainrot into English?
-
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?Here is the latest from a couple days ago. https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360801503/protests-sparked-after-greenlandic-baby-taken-mother-denmark
Denmark has a habit of stealing babies from indigenous women and parents over arbitrary "parental fitness" rules. Unlike other countries - such as Canada - it is not a thing of the past, but an ongoing problem in the present.
-
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forældrekompetenceundersøgelse
Women who were previously victims of sexual assault or who do not have arbitrary trivia knowledge of certain facts have been, and continue to be, routinely judged "unfit parents" and have their children taken from them. This is most often used against indigenous peoples, including just a couple weeks ago, months after the practice was ostensibly ended.
-
When did this pass? I see news stories about the law being proposed a month ago, but nothing about its passage.
AI generated image.
Text but no source.
Vague engagement bait headline.
Yeah, it's Reddit Hours on Lemmy, folks.
-
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.
I would imagine they differentiate between incidental background usage and deliberate exploitation of your likeness.
-
You are wonderful for bringing attention to this, and citizens of Denmark (all of EU?) should fight back. A difference is that the item you linked above is proposed versus the thread topic being supposedly voted on. I can't quickly find links to Denmark equivalents of US house/senate websites with voting info, probably due to language, so I can't prove the above -- but other reporting supports that Danish citizens own the copyright to their person by default now by law, but encryption backdoors are not law.
I highly, forcefully recommend that anyone who is able to do so push back against this proposal or any similar ones. For any "good-guy" who can break encryption, there will be thousands of bad-guys who can break it too. A back-door fundamentally breaks encryption. Technically, a service provider who does end-to-end encryption without a back-door simply cannot inspect content, as that is the whole fucking point. A law like this will only ensure that such providers cannot exist.
I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but for anyone even remotely swayed by the 'but children' aspect of this. This kind of access to your life is only wanted by people/companies/governments who want to be able to harvest your data for power or profit. They need an excuse to get their foot in the door and will rip it open the second they get a chance and invade your whole life for advertising dollars or to find political dissidents. "Give them an inch and they will take a mile", by imperial units.
Fight this shit.
I just wanted to bring to attention that no government should be put on a pedestal. From the outside it's easy to say "oh they're so enlightened in <insert country here>", when they often do braindead stuff too.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Until techs put waivers in the EULAs...
-
that was the case a couple years back. Germany is now pretty well-covered by Street View
Ok, I haven't really looked in years. Did they change the privacy laws, or did Google just change how it was collecting pictures?
-
AI generated image.
Text but no source.
Vague engagement bait headline.
Yeah, it's Reddit Hours on Lemmy, folks.
How many times do you have to learn this lesson people. Never get your news from an unsourced image! Even if it does validate your worldview somehow. I guarantee you if the image in question said "new studies show socialism is bad and socialists are dumb" the top minds of Lemmy would be very quick to fact-check it.
-
How many times do you have to learn this lesson people. Never get your news from an unsourced image! Even if it does validate your worldview somehow. I guarantee you if the image in question said "new studies show socialism is bad and socialists are dumb" the top minds of Lemmy would be very quick to fact-check it.
And consider the source. If the source is "_____isgood.com" I'm not going to take you seriously.
-
AI generated image.
Text but no source.
Vague engagement bait headline.
Yeah, it's Reddit Hours on Lemmy, folks.
AI generated image
I'm not sure if it is, but if so the irony would be wild.
[Note: I'm probably not an AI.]
-
This post did not contain any content.
I see nothing about this law being passed, only that a bill was introduced.
-
What happen with twins? As others say, privacy law approach is better than this...
Is only complicated if one twin consents and the other doesn't. But in general I think the onus is with the publisher to prove consent.
