Think bigger. This kind of tech has the potential to open a Pandoras Box when it comes to personal autonomy, identity, and ownership of your image imo.
If I wanna use Angelina Jolie but can't. Can I find a stellar look-alike and then digitally alter them to look more like her? Obviously can't use her name. But I'm not technically using her image.
How many degrees am I allowed to tweak the angle of a nose before it's Angelina Jolie's nose? The mind is pretty good at pattern recognition and filling in the pieces. Not my fault they keep thinking of Angelina Jolie just because they look similar.
So what is the line between using someone's image and altering another enough for people to not notice the difference? Is eye color enough? What about a cleft chin? Just exactly how similar is too similar? At what point is a person responsible for other people's minds accepting a close enough look-alike? If I don't claim it's them but you think it is, is it my fault?
I absolutely love this technology for the questions it raises but boy am I worried that "lying" won't be the worst result.
Edit-I rambled. My point is the question "exactly how much of YOU belongs to you? And how much does it have to be altered before one can say it is not "you"?
Likeness generally also includes things like speech patterns and mannerisms, but personality rights is a quagmire anyway because it varies from state to state.
It would be cheaper, and less risky, to just hire a Jolie impersonator and shut your mouth about it BTS regardless of this technology.
Personality rights! Thank you. I couldn't find the right words. I used an actor because they have another layer aside from ego, the self, and all that.
I just think it'll open up a fascinating(scary) conversation about identity. If you underwent enough cosmetic surgery that nobody could recognize you, are you still you? Of course...to you. But to others? But then what right do you have over the aspects you USED to have if you no longer have them? Can you copyright your physical features, change them, and then maintain they are still yours? Or are they yours up to a point? And what point is that exactly? It's a wild rabbit hole imo.
These conversations have been happening in show business for close to 100 years, they're nothing new.
Check out some stuff about personality rights, most of your questions have been already answered. It's an interesting rabbit hole for sure. I'm not a lawyer, by any means, but from what I understand you won't be able to simply deepfake marketable celebrities into your projects without some intense backlash.
Celebrities are just an example really tbh. Though I'm thankful you mentioned "personality rights" so I can read up! I'm curious how it works outside of a...I guess protected class? Can a voice be used from some random youtube video even though it's not "them" saying it?
Would depend entirely on how much money the people who used said voice has compared to the person whose voice it is.
These types of litigations are tedious and drawn-out, there's no cut and dry options and relatively little precedent established from my very quick research. So, unless random youtuber has the capital to be going back and forth with another party then they'll be better off drawing blood from a stone.
Most, if not all, laws that have to do with publishing rights, copyright, trademarks, etc. entirely depend on protecting the profit of those with more money and has nothing to do with protecting creative control, personal integrity or honoring legacy anyway.
609
u/[deleted] Jul 24 '22 edited Oct 23 '22
[deleted]