cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/20181716
Law would hold US individuals and firms liable for ripping off a person’s digital likeness.
What about photography? Can i use this to demand the removal of my likeness from meta google etc
I believe you can if you are talking about deepfakes.
So copyright laws done right for a change?
Don’t bank on it
Now I’m curious. I wonder if there is, or would ever be, any similar protection for physical likeness. Statues, wax models, action figures, etc. I’m sure that’s probably a much smaller concern, though.
Also, I love that the example AI image they provide looks like high-T Mark Zuckerberg.
Also, do drawings and portrayals in media, etc. count?
The “Stop Using AI to Make Videos of JD Fucking Couches and Dolphins” bill?
This is so that famous people and their heirs can get more free money.
The only thing this does for ordinary people is make them poorer.
Why not 700 years? It will save Disney 10 lobbying campaigns
I’m a twin.
Explain how that’s gonna work.
The obvious solution would just be to kill the surviving twin when the first one dies. Simplifies things
In a matter of ten years we gonna evolved into sharks
Illegal to share? So you see a video of someone and before you can share it without legal risk you have to verify its provenance? How is this supposed to be practical either from a usage or enforcement standpoint?
There is the problem that people are so similar to each other that face recognition technology keeps misidentifying people, in some cases putting innocent people in jail for someone else’s crimes.
That would totally suck if we had to prove in court that our randomized face was not intended to look like some famous person.
It would also totally suck if Sony owned my face which means I can only appear in public when Sony allows it.
All of this already exists, except rights of privacy against misappropriation of name or likeness end at death. Copyright generally goes the life of the author plus 70 years.
Don’t worry, the Public Appearance weekly subscription fees will be very reasonable.
Likeness shouldn’t be copyrightable, and copy shouldn’t extend past a couple decades.
Now the AI hate train makes sense. Usher in a new era of digital copyrights. I was wondering why media was reusing the same “immigrants are coming for your women children and and tooth brushes” headlines but with AI instead.
The bill has also been endorsed by entertainment companies such as The Walt Disney Company, Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group, Sony Music, the Independent Film & Television Alliance, William Morris Endeavor, Creative Arts Agency, the Authors Guild, and Vermillio.
I don’t think something being pushed by Sony music, universal music and Disney is going to be good for the consumer.:
DIGITAL REPLICA.-The term “digital replica” means a newly created, computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation that is readily identifiable as the voice or visual likeness of an individual
There’s a reason why we can’t copyright a voice. I can’t wait for YouTube to delist all my videos because they algorithms decided I sound too much like Ben Affleck.
There’s essentially 3 companies that own all our music. This bill is their attempt at making sure they are the only ones that can offer music generation services.
My bet on why they are endorsing it: if they get an actor to sign something for Disney to use their image while they are alive, then they can hold onto that exclusive right to the image for 70 years after the actor dies.
