Comments
poooooooooopo t1_j8myzmv wrote
Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery...
[deleted] t1_j8n46ss wrote
[removed]
MoominTheFirst t1_j8n6725 wrote
The comments below this so far is why people think having a Reddit account is a red flag. Go outside.
AvatarJack t1_j8n9wdy wrote
And here's another drawback to letting old people run our societies. As technology advances, laws aren't keeping up because the people writing laws still think computers are a fad. There really needs to be some sort of independent lobbying group that tries to educate lawmakers about technology and effective methods of regulation (as opposed to the nonsense, uninformed half measures they take today).
-_-_-__-_-_-__-_- t1_j8ncwzt wrote
That's quite a blanket statement. It's funny how reddit is so hypersensitive to anything that could be remotely interpreted as racist, sexist, homophobic etc yet ageism is so widely accepted and even encouraged.
AvatarJack t1_j8neqvq wrote
Do I think we should discriminate against people based on their age? No.
Do I think lawmakers should have baseline knowledge about the topics they’re legislating on? Yes.
Do I think old people are on average unprepared to handle a topic as complex as internet regulation? Also yes.
If that’s ageism to you, then I’m sorry. But don’t feel too bad for them because current old people control basically all government in the US (can’t speak for elsewhere) so I think they’ll be fine if someone hurts their feelings.
-_-_-__-_-_-__-_- t1_j8nfhy5 wrote
You're assuming age is the issue here, when the real issue is these lawmakers are mostly bought by corporations and are lax on issues that don't benefit their portfolio or get them re-elected. This goes for the young and old politicians alike. I know many older people who keep up with technology or are at least curious to learn.
Edit: Also because this deepfake porn issue affects so few people, it's never going to be moved from the backburner. Creating laws around it won't even create a ripple in the election cycle. This is the real issue: the only job of a politician is to get re-elected. The creation of a new law (even computer related) is not determined by the age of the politician, but the likelihood of it getting said politician elected again, or like I mentioned, getting some sort of financial compensation.
lordmycal t1_j8nhfw3 wrote
Legislation will always lag behind by it’s very nature. We just don’t go around proactively making new things illegal. There almost always has to be an actual problem that lawmakers are trying to solve, and then it takes a while for laws to be written, lobbies for and go into effect.
desperate_coder t1_j8ni535 wrote
The solution is simple, though terrible. Start making and distributing deepfake porn of lawmakers.
EmbarrassedHelp t1_j8nk1mj wrote
The issue with laws attempting to deal with this issue, is that they they will likely be written vague enough to harm the art community, and they will place the onus on companies to damage their models instead of targeting the people who do use the models for harm.
throwaway_MT_452298 t1_j8nsrsw wrote
We voted for them correct? WHY? Also please define old for us.... is it over 50,60,65 or what is the cutoff please you know for science.
throwaway_MT_452298 t1_j8nt0cg wrote
>the real issue is these lawmakers are mostly bought by corporations
So much this!!! I would go so far as to remove mostly... It is very hard for a honest politician to get elected to do the will of the people who put them in office. They get put in office to do the will of the $$$ that put them in office.
hedgetank t1_j8ntlrw wrote
Can't the women being targeted, or anyone for that matter, simply file a copyright on their likeness, and then DMCA/sue any company that hosts infringing content?
very_bad_programmer t1_j8ntoh4 wrote
This is about what I'd expect from someone who browses jordan peterson, crowder, and conservative subs
frakkintoaster t1_j8nzcdf wrote
If you deepfaked some conservative into a video of them banging a porn star they would just jerk off to it
djspacepope t1_j8nzsen wrote
Yup being a public figure means you allow the public to use your image in any parody, as long it does not copy the original content exactly. So yeah, don't wanna be publicly fucked, don't be a public figure.
__tony__snark__ t1_j8o00ni wrote
A straw man and an ad hominem all in one!
BigZaddyZ3 t1_j8o0b6a wrote
Kind of a stupid take on all this tbh. There’s nothing stopping this tech from being used against non-public figures as well.
djspacepope t1_j8o1xr6 wrote
Yup, welcome to the future. Things move fast. I didn't say it was right, Im just explaining, at this point in time, why it's always been a inherent risk to being a public figure. When it comes to private people, well I guess they have a new wrinkle to iron out
Rule 34 and revenge porn existed long before this.
FallenJoe t1_j8o2g95 wrote
No, copywrite doesn't work that way.
Copywrite protects the product of creative works. If you didn't make something, you don't have a copywrite to it. If someone makes a knockoff Pokemon game using Pokemon characters they get sued for using a creative work under copywrite without permissions.
So the person being deepfaked can't sue for copywrite infringement, the only person who could arguably do so would be the photographer who took the video or image used in the deepfake generation. The person getting photographed only owns the copywrite for the image if the copywrite had been explicitly transferred or sold to them by the person who previously owned it (by default the creator of the creative work).
There are other laws that might be applicable for the situation, but they're not copywrite laws.
frakkintoaster t1_j8o3gdq wrote
It was just supposed to be a joke, not an argument :)
Movie_Monster t1_j8o3kd4 wrote
I’ll give you the long-winded “not a lawyer” answer, if you don’t like it, take it up with the fake bar association.
If you are making a living by your appearance like a celebrity, then you can sue for unauthorized use of your likeness. If you are a normal Joe Schmoe that’s not really an argument you can make.
I found this out when I was working for a university and we had a lawyer in our video production department. We used to make anyone on camera sign a waiver, the lawyer said it’s not necessary unless they were a minor, or some other circumstance that involved being mentally competent, or like aware of the video production.
But the lawyer was clear that if we filmed with a celebrity we had to get a waiver signed.
Now things are totally different if you are filming someone who is not aware of the camera in a space where you would expect privacy like a bathroom.
Anyone else in public is fair game as far as the law is concerned. While it’s creepy, you can definitely film anyone in public, I’ve heard protestors claim you can’t film their face or even young girls in public, same shit, no one has any authority to stop you from filming, the law is on your side.
[deleted] t1_j8o42vu wrote
[removed]
reddit-MT t1_j8o4g6o wrote
The problem isn't age so much as that modern technology is complicated and changes quickly. Judges and lawmakers need to rely on technology experts to explain issues they don't understand. Problem is that those experts are often tied to their respective industries.
desperate_coder t1_j8o9an0 wrote
That's where the terrible part comes in, you don't deep fake them having pornstar sex, you deep fake lawmakers having sex with each other or you deep fake them having sex with people they hate and alienate. Stuff that is publicly embarrassing for them.
[deleted] t1_j8oaagv wrote
[removed]
FPSPoonzy t1_j8odnz9 wrote
Same with politicians. Both local and national wise. It'd be the only way as you said.
Sirmalta t1_j8ofspo wrote
I dont get why anyone cares about this.
It isnt you... people have been doing this with photoshop for like 25 years.
Why do you care? You cant stop people from picturing it, or drawing it, or painting it, or photoshopping it, so why do people care if a computer puts your face on someone in porn?
Uristqwerty t1_j8og1o5 wrote
The dataset used to train the model needs to be sourced ethically, just like the supply chain used by a physical manufacturer needs to be audited to ensure a supplier isn't using slave labour in a country too remote to attract much attention over the issue. In this case, I'd say the companies need to either dilute their datasets further, using fewer samples from any given person to the point that AI can't replicate the appearance of a specific person or the style of an artist except by improbable coincidence or extreme genericity, or get consent from each person who (or whose work) appears in the training data.
Though this is deepfakes, which I think involve users applying additional training material specifically of the target, so that the AI over-fits to that specific output. If the original AI was ethically/respectfully produced, then the people responsible for the additional rounds of training ought to be the ones at fault, at least as much as the prompt-writer themselves (assuming they're not the same individual!). For that, the only good solution I can think of is legislation.
Sirmalta t1_j8ogee5 wrote
Leftist here. The only reason I dont watch deepfakes is because theyre stupid. Show me a video of the actual person fucking, and I'm in. Deep fakes are just dumb fan art.
I dont care about them, and frankly neither should anyone else. Its lame, not sexy, and too dumb to be offensive.
Sensual_Pudding t1_j8ogujk wrote
Wouldn’t be hard to put some in a lemon party video.
AustinJG t1_j8oi053 wrote
Just deep fake everyone. Make the pics so ridiculous that it's comical and so numerous that it becomes pointless for anyone to make more. Lets just rip the collective band aid off.
goofypugs t1_j8oo7er wrote
that got real creepy towards the end
[deleted] t1_j8or42x wrote
[deleted]
SmirkNtwerk t1_j8oruwc wrote
It sure did.
[deleted] t1_j8ot6t2 wrote
[removed]
BlackandBlue14 t1_j8ov1x3 wrote
I urge everyone to pause and consider how ubiquitous these sorts of deep fake tools will become over the next decade. There is zero - I repeat, zero - chance of preventing bad actors from creating this sort of content and distributing it online. You MAY be able to stop people from profiting from it. Even so, an unregulated marketplace will persist.
irritatedprostate t1_j8ox80l wrote
Already exists.
Petaris t1_j8oxtum wrote
This varies based on country though. Just so that people keep it in mind that the rules are different depending on where you are.
For example, in Japan you cannot take a picture, or video, of someone without their explicit permission.
Admin-12 t1_j8oz3xy wrote
Okay so get Trump deepfaked into having a gang bang with the whole GQP and someone include anything to do with LGBT. They’ll be talking about it on OANN before lunch.
[deleted] t1_j8ozw9m wrote
[removed]
nobody_smith723 t1_j8p2gv5 wrote
nancy pelosi's giant gilf tig ole bitties has already got to exist somewhere
askaboutmy____ t1_j8p2ib6 wrote
Ted Cruz would finally get to fulfill his fantasy about Cory Chase!
PKCertified t1_j8p35n6 wrote
I seem to recall something about cocaine orgies. It would be a shame if someone found video evidence.
JCGolf t1_j8p3urb wrote
they’ll just ban deepfakes of politicians but not regular folk
nicuramar t1_j8p6buc wrote
It’s copyright. As in, the right to (control) copies.
jnobs t1_j8p8n9n wrote
Lindsay Graham invented the lemon party
OlynykDidntFoulLove t1_j8p9321 wrote
It’s the difference between being able to build a bomb with home materials and being able to order one premade on Amazon. One requires effort and knowledge while the other just needs a credit card. It’s about the barriers to entry being lower and the ability to mass produce.
Elegant_Tale_3929 t1_j8pblcs wrote
Timing is important, do it during an election year.
FallenJoe t1_j8pbot6 wrote
Again, no, it doesn't work that way. You don't have any sort of general copyright to your personal appearance, and so someone creating a deepfake of you isn't violating copyright unless (and this is a maybe because it hasn't been litigated) they used material that did have a valid copyright in the generation of the deepfake. And then they would be violating the copyright of the person that holds the rights to the initial material, not necessarily the person being deepfaked.https://www.upcounsel.com/can-i-trademark-my-face
Copyright isn't a magic wand you can wave around just go "Oh it's a deepfake of me so I'll sue them for copyright." You have to meet very specific standards to have a copyright and other for it to be infringed.https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf
For example:Works created unknowingly can't receive a copyright: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJX_83mswFA
Pictures taken by nonhuman actors can't receive copyright: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute
AI generated art currently isn't eligible for copywrite (this may change): https://www.intellectualproperty.law/2022/05/copyright-office-denies-registration-of-computer-generated-art/
xBelowAveragex t1_j8pc621 wrote
I understand that reference.
[deleted] t1_j8pd949 wrote
[removed]
skolioban t1_j8pf14m wrote
This. Deepfake them doing the things they are preaching against. It doesn't even need to be porn.
Movie_Monster t1_j8pfh9y wrote
Right I should have specified the USA.
mabris t1_j8phtat wrote
And revenge porn is illegal in many jurisdictions…
Unhappy_Gas_4376 t1_j8pi3pu wrote
I assume you've not seen the AOC and Sarah Palin deepfakes.
Unhappy_Gas_4376 t1_j8pi9pp wrote
No, then you can't tell the real sex tapes from the real ones. It gives them plausible deniability.
[deleted] t1_j8pkhgj wrote
[deleted]
probono105 t1_j8plgwx wrote
they cant stop it because if they say that deepfakes cant be trained from publicly available photos then they are saying things like chat gpt are a no go as well
VegaTDM t1_j8pw6bb wrote
Consent does not apply to drawings of yourself, why would it apply to AI?
hawkwings t1_j8pxpym wrote
>in Japan you cannot take a picture, or video, of someone without their explicit permission.
That would interfere with vacation pictures. You would have to make sure that no one was in the way when you took a picture of a temple or beach.
Petaris t1_j8q1bju wrote
Privacy is a big deal in Japan.
The laws are not quite as straight forward as what I mentioned but its the safe way to conduct yourself when taking pictures there. There are of course exceptions and qualifications for what is and is not allowed and some of it is based around how the image may be used.
If you don't believe me you can go look it up for yourself. There is a lot of info out there about it.
That being said, I doubt that a random passerby is going to make a fuss if they end up in your vacation photo by accident.
If however you are taking vacation photos of them specifically, like Geisha on a picturesque street in Kyoto for example, you very likely will be in trouble and have the police called on you.
Gideon_Effect t1_j8q1l9p wrote
Maybe hunter will use this as a defense.
Culverin t1_j8q38wp wrote
That sounds like some British parliament sorta shit
[deleted] t1_j8q5hft wrote
[removed]
LandoChronus t1_j8q6ua9 wrote
We're just a few hundreds years behind the times.
LandoChronus t1_j8q765d wrote
Your post didn't touch on the case (or I didn't understand fully) where the person/party recording will use that recording for profit. I think of like "candid camera" type shows.
Even though they don't need permission to film the random public, do they need permission if they're then going to profit off the footage? Is this why everyone around the "mark" they're messing with has their face blurred, or is that just a CYA thing?
This would be different than just filming someone for a project or whatever that won't be used in a commercial setting.
DanHassler0 t1_j8q7dm1 wrote
Should laws protect them? It's not them, right?
SvenTropics t1_j8q7opj wrote
Or just get over it. People have been photoshopping celebrity porn for over 20 years, and that's been fine. Have their lives been damaged in any measurable way? Absolutely not. The slippery slope we'd have to climb on to create legislation around. This is not one I ever want them to go down. Is your life really affected in any substantial way if someone made a digital representation of you that was getting Eiffel towered? Nope. Everyone knows it fake. For that matter, you're not going to be the target of this unless you're a celebrity or a politician. (Basically some kind of public figure) If they start making Barack Obama porn, a lot of women will probably be happy about that.
rammo123 t1_j8q7s7z wrote
Are we 100% sure none of them were in the original?
ExtantPlant t1_j8q7wlw wrote
Hmmm. Not sure if I want to see McConnell getting railed by a smoking hot trans lady or not.
Oliver_DeNom t1_j8q9on1 wrote
Deep fake a congressman correctly using a house page's preferred pronouns. That will get the legislation moving.
GregoPDX t1_j8qcczq wrote
At least for US productions, all candid camera shows where the person isn’t just in the background, they signed a waiver. Any of the radio shows where they call someone clandestinely are just actors - I don’t think there’s any legal way to do it otherwise.
Tiny-Peenor t1_j8qdnf8 wrote
Look up Lindsey graham ladybugs
jnobs t1_j8qds1u wrote
No, I don’t think I will.
[deleted] t1_j8qdws8 wrote
[removed]
Heklyr t1_j8qer7f wrote
At least I wont be the only one
conventionalWisdumb t1_j8qfjkq wrote
All the GOP lining up and sucking Obama off would do the trick. With Trump getting the money shot, because you know, he’s into money.
Starkrall t1_j8qjei6 wrote
It should be distasteful enough to threaten their career with the knowledge that it's fake.
FLRUlbts t1_j8qjfl5 wrote
"Deceptively manipulated pornography used the likenesses of Twitch stars without their consent, and now they're calling for more to be done."
Umm, phrasing? Do they really want more?
kenghoong t1_j8qo3je wrote
Not if he’s the receiving end from mandingo
Metallic_Hedgehog t1_j8qpkim wrote
You cannot ban this technology, because you can't enforce it. It's essentially similar to Napster. If you ban it, 30 more popped up. It wasn't until streaming made the $15 + convenience a better value than free media + viruses that piracy fell out of the mainstream.
I think the best solution currently is to require videos to label such content, such as how sponsored content must be labeled. Granted, this only works for now while deepfake technology is still detectable.
Bad_Mood_Larry t1_j8qruwy wrote
>The dataset used to train the model needs to be sourced ethically, just like the supply chain used by a physical manufacturer needs to be audited to ensure a supplier isn't using slave labour in a country too remote to attract much attention over the issue.
Using data that readily and publicly accessible on the internet that was uploaded to the internet (many of which signed their right away to be collected in a dataset) to train a dataset is no where close to using slave labor this is a horrible analogy.
TheConboy22 t1_j8qye4v wrote
Nah, I want all GOP members deepfaked into being fucked by Trump
Lemonic_Tutor t1_j8r0be5 wrote
Then we’ll threaten to post the porn online unless the politician fucks a pig on national television
railgunsix t1_j8r4ngr wrote
I have Japan exported iPhone. You can't disable camera shutter sound. I also have Korea exported Samsung although they allow it to be on mute.
browserleet t1_j8r6x8m wrote
What if it’s stated in the video, clearly, that the videos are not the real person?
It’s still morally wrong, but at least the viewer knows the real person isn’t in the video.
Western-Image7125 t1_j8r8hat wrote
The solution is simple, and not terrible. We should already start doing this right away
Unlikely_Champion193 t1_j8reziw wrote
people hate, but it is a little funny
Uristqwerty t1_j8rsa3r wrote
When it comes to consumer behaviour, people flocking to the cheaper product and actively saying "I don't care about the supply chain! Give me my cheap phone/AI art" while others keep trying to draw attention to unethical practices? It's a very close parallel. Maybe the harm feels less tangible when spread out over orders of magnitude more people, or when you're so accustomed to abusive ToS conditions giving away your rights, but it's still there.
Agariculture t1_j8s0ii2 wrote
The exact same thing is true of all human activities. Government bans do not work.
Imnot_your_buddy_guy t1_j8ttqt2 wrote
I’d start wearing a mask if I was a female twitch star…
Gullil t1_j8vcf8h wrote
I love them
TheRedGoatAR15 t1_j8mwt5q wrote
I am going to need a link to, uhm, research how 'believable' the porn might be.
Also, if someone told me, "Hey, you're in a porno." My first reaction would NOT be, "Wait, am I on this?"
Unless, of course, there was the real possibility that I WAS in a pr0n....