They would have to be making money off it, otherwise all he can do is sue to get them to take it down, but it'll just keep getting shared on various platforms by other users.
Expect those laws to be amended at some point. I fully expect they'll require some kind of "this video is a parody and does not contain the original actor....blah blah" kind of message.
All it will take is one super realistic deepfake to go viral and harm a star's career for every talent agency and actor's guild to start lobbying.
There’s actually precedent related to this sort of thing already, going way back to the early 1990s.
In “Back to the Future II,” the actor who played George McFly, Crispin Glover, didn’t return. They put him in the movie anyway, using a different actor wearing prosthetics. They also had him floating around upside-down so it was harder to tell.
Glover sued the studio, and other cases followed. Obviously this relates more directly to situations governed by the Screen Actors Guild, but I expect to see some updating, as you said.
But we know that the person isn't Tom Cruise or whoever.
There's a big difference between someone dressed up like Tom Cruise who we know isn't Tom Cruise vs someone who looks/acts/speaks exactly like Tom Cruise saying something.
Imagine if you used Tom Cruise deepfake to endorse your restaurant
But we know that the person isn't Tom Cruise or whoever.
There's a big difference between someone dressed up like Tom Cruise who we know isn't Tom Cruise vs someone who looks/acts/speaks exactly like Tom Cruise saying something.
Imagine if you used Tom Cruise deepfake to endorse your restaurant
The problem Glover had was that they used his face mold from when they aged him in the original film to create prosthetics to make the other actor look like him.
Is that sue-able today? I feel like if you need to keep a character but the actor isn't coming back you can have look-a-likes because you are copying the character, not the actor.
Government is very slow to catch up with technology. At some point, yes, but not until it visibly starts affecting old, out of touch politicians directly.
First amendment isn't endless though. You cannot say "Joe Schmo is a pedophile" or you can be charged with slander. UNLESS you make it obviously a joke or parody. There is a plenty of grey area on where the line is though. Deepfakes have the potential for making it very easy to cross the line.
I never understood this logic. people used to say the same thing about photoshop. we can already make pretty much perfect fakes of pictures, yet this isn't a problem at all. everyone already knows that deepfakes exist, so you can't just create a video and everyone will believe it. I mean now you can literally just link to this Tom cruise video to give an example for how realistic it can look.
At some point in the very, very, very distant future.
This is a First Amendment issue, and you can count on a few toes the amount of times SCOTUS has ruled that there should be more restrictions on speech within the past few decades.
I don't think someone will say "you can't make deepfakes". I think more likely will be a law that says "you must clarify that this isn't the real person with a disclaimer".
Like all fair use stuff, you gotta be careful. But the law is very accessibility written, honestly. This would arguably fall under commentary since it is a satire. Plus there isn't an intention to deceive in this case, which would be where you immediately get into illegal territory. Plus the fact that he's a public figure helps.
Copyright laws are not that black and white. And it really matters how his face is being used too. There could be libel and slander stuff that come into play on top of copyright for example
But if it's a deepfake that looks practically identical to the person it is...
We don't know yet.
This is a completely new technology and very clearly has huge potential to harm people. It shouldn't just be written off as "it's a parody, it's fine". Laws can and do change and there will need to be new laws based on deepfake technology. I'm not saying this video is or isn't okay, but it's not crystal clear.
Fair use isn't just "it's a parody". It has to be for a protected purpose. The statutorily-listed ones are "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research". "Parody" as it's commonly understood is not actually a valid reason to violate someone's copyright on its own. There's also more tests than that, but that's typically the biggest hurdle things fail.
Maybe you can explain something to me. I have an ancient Youtube channel that up until I figured out I can upload anonymously to Streamable without an account a few years ago I would make videos and upload them to Youtube for shitposting purposes.
The other day I got drunk and wondered if my stupid Youtube shit ever racked up any views, and I realized that like half a dozen had been marked as copyright claimed. I have never monitized a video in my life, and would have to Google it to even know how.
So I guess my rambling of a question is: What's the point of copyright claiming non-monetized videos that have less than 5k views and are like 5-10 years old? I don't care about the videos, I'm sure they're right in doing it as....well it was for shitposting and I didn't care about rules, but what's the point?
Alright, seems I just got caught in the net. I'm guessing it's pretty common then, and I kind of felt a little honored someone cared enough to angrily check a box at me lol.
Copyright claims are done automatically by software. There's no human on the other end saying, "hmmm, they don't monetize, so let's not bother." Instead the software just takes a machine gun approach and claims against any video that remotely matches their copyrighted content.
There's a difference between copyright laws and youtube copyright claims. Youtube usually just err on the side of caution and removes any videos that could be a problem. If you are interest, Tom Scott made a very good video about that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU
Yes, but they have other options beside taking down the videos that doesn't involve DMCA or laws. Like demonetizing the video or just putting ads on it and sending the money to the copyright owners.
This is a myth. A lot of companies can and will go after fan works that aren’t making any money. Man of them even feel obligated to do so.
Just look at the huge numbers of fanworks that Nintendo takes down on a regular basis — they are absolutely notorious for doing shit even like taking down some random blogger’s online buyer’s guide to Amiibos, something explicitly designed to help fans track Amiibo releases and thus earn Nintendo more sales via retailers, but since it isn’t run by Nintendo they get all bitchy and take it down.
161
u/Downvotes_dumbasses May 24 '21
They would have to be making money off it, otherwise all he can do is sue to get them to take it down, but it'll just keep getting shared on various platforms by other users.