why aren't we funding this....
-
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.
-
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.
