Can deepfake "parodies" be legal?
 

Any ideas on this?

reddit didnt liked them

Anybody else?

Of course not.

A parody uses look-alike actors. Deepfake uses copyright images.

They're tasteless and weird ....

Anytime you are fucking with somebody you are fucking with them.
That's what I think about; because a new law can be passed just because I fucked with somebody.

:2 cents:

^^^ Truth!

The fact of the matter is Parody uses trademarked names in the titles like "Justice League XXX", trademarked logo fonts, and often trademarked costumes/clothes, and even the storylines are copyright infringement on the actual movie. Just because it's called "Parody", it's legal? That's bullshit.

So how is Deepfake any different? MIght as well call it Actress "Parody" then and get away with it..

But it's always completely obvious that it's not the real people or company in a parody.
Deep fakes' entire purpose is to make you think this is the real person or company.

That's a really big difference that you are overlooking.

A lot of people are doing it with stole content.
My releases cover new media and new technology. If I deepfake my own models with my own video, I don't see the legal problem with that.

Do you own the video of the celebrity too or is that stolen content?

:helpme

When i was doing learn to create them ( doing the training), I did it on videos I shot and photos I have taken.

Nothing stolen. I hate it when my own work gets stolen, that would be fucked up for me to steal other people images.

I completely agree with you.

:thumbsup:thumbsup:2 cents:

Blah blah blah : Opinion always changes when it's your content or face with shit on it.

:1orglaugh

Really it is 2 questions.

are deepfake legal?

are parodies legal?

deepfakes are a tool, like a camera, or a computer. You can use it to break the law or you can use it to do other things..

Where is the funny part about deep fakes?

None.

End of story.

Most people really need lawyers to figure out basic shit.

:(

Have you seen the nicolas cage deepfakes or the trump deepfakes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On3vPlqcsLo

Yeah, I'm sure they are on youtube.

:1orglaugh

There are plenty of celebrity photos in the public domain, so use of them shouldn't be considered stolen. It would be interesting to see what a judge would say about the combination of public domain celebrity images AI merged with one's own video content.

Like who?

The judge would say "do you want the top or bottom bunk?"

:1orglaugh

Don't argue with "copyright benders" because they don't get it until the cock is all the way up Kim Dotcom's ass.

:1orglaugh

Go to Wikipedia.org and pick your favorite celebrity.

I'm not putting my neck on the chopping block, but Manwin/Mindgeek took plenty of liberties using others' copyrighted content and got away with it.

And plenty of people got away with murder but it's still illegal.

Yeah Manwin/Mindgeek sent out a release saying they're banning deep fakes because it's non consensual content.

But my stolen content on porn hub is not consensual what the fuck are they doing about that? They aren't banning it because it sure as fuck keeps popping up every fucking week after being removed.

The legality of AI created content is still yet to be determined. There are legitimate arguments on both sides.

Just because a persons picture appears on Wikipedia or others like IMDB doesn't mean it is in the public domain.

In order for you to use a picture of anyone for your own business or even in content you generate yourself, you have to have permission to do so, and usually that means paying for the rights to use that image.

This is true in just about every circumstance. Even a photograph of a person in a movie, where that person did not even act, must be paid for. Any time there is a sound or a sample that is used in any song, that sound or sample has been or should have been paid for too. Look up copyright law to know more about how this works, and about exceptions, etc.


If you distribute any content without permission or rights to do so, you are asking for lots of legal trouble.

But don't take my word for it, just ask your lawyer.

Probably a very smart move by Mindgeek. I'm pretty sure they woudn't want to get into a legal battle with Disney or Universal or MGM.


That fucking sucks. You would think that tube sites would have wanted to work with content creators to get a better handle on this by now.


I don't think you understand how it works. AI "Created" content uses images scraped from Google Image Search. Go to Google Images and enter the name of your favourite celeb, and you will get their images. Find the right angle and images you want and copy-paste them onto a single frame of a video you like, then do it again for the next frame. Lather, rinse, repeat. "Deep Fake" does this and repeats this step thousands of times, with a little filter and cropping thrown in.

Really? Do share.

Deepfakes could be seen as derivative works.
Makes you wonder how they may proliferate if a legal case involving one is dismissed because of this.

Thanks. Good resource.

There are plenty of files on Wikipedia with the following licensing terms:

See link posted by DBS.US in post #7 above.

Should be legal.