why aren't we funding this....
-
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.
-
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.
The fact that even barely audible music in the background is considered a copyright violation on youtube and people have to cut the sound or overwrite it is abuse of the laws IMHO.
-
I would imagine they differentiate between incidental background usage and deliberate exploitation of your likeness.
The bill is specifically aimed at AI alterations, not general usage.
-
And consider the source. If the source is "_____isgood.com" I'm not going to take you seriously.
Anal is lots of fun. I read that on analisgood.com...
-
Anal is lots of fun. I read that on analisgood.com...
Well im sold
-
Until techs put waivers in the EULAs...
Well, lawyers, but yes this would need more teeth to be effective. They need to introduce some friction to slow business down on that front.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I don't get it. Deep fakes were still ilegal as it's an attempt against honor and fabricated defamation. Training would still fall under "fair use" as any other copyright media. What's changed?
-
This post did not contain any content.
i thought that was already copyright law? isn't that why you can't photograph people without model release forms?
-
i thought that was already copyright law? isn't that why you can't photograph people without model release forms?
No, that's due to likeness rights and privacy concerns. Copyright protects creative expression and your face and body are not themselves creative expressions-- they just are. This is why you also don't get copyright protection over purely statistical data.
