this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
283 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

59589 readers
2891 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
283
Senators propose “Digital replication right” for likeness, extending 70 years after death (arstechnica.com)
submitted 3 months ago by dch82@lemmy.zip to c/technology@lemmy.world
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/20181716

Law would hold US individuals and firms liable for ripping off a person's digital likeness.

top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 109 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

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 the 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.

[–] Plopp@lemmy.world 37 points 3 months ago

Yeah if those companies back it then I'm suspicious by default. Based on their previous actions they could come out and say murdering babies is wrong and I'd start wondering if murdering babies maybe should be legal.

[–] w2tpmf@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FanciestPants@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

But for the near term, maybe it means they have to stop putting Carrie Fisher in stuff?

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 54 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't see how this makes ordinary people poorer. Were you making money off of other people's likeness?

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

While there's almost infinite potential human faces, all human faces look somewhat alike, because, they're human faces. My thesis is basically that if you draw or 3d model a human, chances are that there's at least one famous person who looks similar enough for lawsuit even if you didn't know they existed beforehand, making you liable to get sued if you try to monetize your artwork. So, basically, if this were to pass, artists would no longer be allowed to publish/monetize art that depicts humans, even if their art is completely original.

Also, did you know that the NFT marketplace Open Sea used to ignore DMCA takedown requests? They assumed that the artists whose art they hosted would not be able to afford a lawsuit, and since they didn't get sued into the ground, I assume they were right. It would similar with this. If you're an average person, you wouldn't be able to afford to sue if Disney or such uses your appearance without your permission.

And that's how this would make life worse for the average person.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

AFAIK, this is not talking about paintings, sketches, etc. It explicitly says highly realistic. Also, it specifies digitally.

Also, wouldn't your argument about Disney have been true before this law?

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 months ago

Yes, I think Copyright lasts way to long. In fact, I believe that in an ideal world, copyright wouldn't exist, because artists should be free to create whatever they please. So if a painter wants to paint, say Han Solo wearing a silly hat, they should be free to do so, but under copyright, they can be sued if they do so. Of course I realize that artists need to sustain themselves, and therefore need to monetize their artwork, hence we have copyright. But even then, it should be limited to, say, 20 years from creation of the work. That way, the artists would be able to monetize their work, even handsomely, but it would stop cultural landlords like Disney from arising.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 35 points 3 months ago (2 children)

What about photography? Can i use this to demand the removal of my likeness from meta google etc

[–] Beacon@fedia.io 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

No, this legislation is specifically about creating fake replicas. An actual recording of you in a space where you have no expectation of privacy is legal.

But with that said, you already can request meta/Google/etc remove photos of you. Though i have no idea if they actually take action on those requests.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

I doubt they delete it.

[–] TheBigBrother@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I believe you can if you are talking about deepfakes.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 27 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm a twin.

Explain how that's gonna work.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 15 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The obvious solution would just be to kill the surviving twin when the first one dies. Simplifies things

[–] mPony@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

brb writing a Highlander reboot featuring the Dionne Quintuplets

[–] pmarcilus@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

In a matter of ten years we gonna evolved into sharks

[–] dch82@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 months ago

IDK bro don’t jinx it

[–] BlackLaZoR@kbin.run 27 points 3 months ago

Why not 700 years? It will save Disney 10 lobbying campaigns

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] androogee@midwest.social 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Don't worry, the Public Appearance weekly subscription fees will be very reasonable.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Your face isn't copyrighted

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Right, that's why they're introducing this bill. I need another revenue stream.

[–] beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 3 months ago

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?

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Isn't this already covered under our fraud laws? This law just seems to give more power to groups like the RIAA and other large media orgs.

If you can prove someone is committing fraud, you can already sue them. We should merely strengthen those laws, not create a "digital replication right" or whatever. Screw that, we should be limiting copyright, not extending it...

[–] Beacon@fedia.io 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I think existing fraud laws would just cover cases where someone tries to sell the fake as if its the real thing.

For instance let's say i made an AI replica of Arnold Schwarzenegger and put it in a movie. If i said "come see my movie with Schwarzenegger in it" then that would be fraud, but if i said "come see my movie with a replica of Schwarzenegger in it" then that wouldn't be fraud.

Or at least that's what i think is correct, but IANAL

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

Yeah, and I think that's totally fine, and if somehow someone's likeness falls under copyright, it should fall under Fair Use imo.

The problem with replicas is passing something off as authentic that isn't, and that's what fraud protects against.

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Likeness shouldn't be copyrightable, and copy shouldn't extend past a couple decades.

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

30 years seems reasonable. On an unrelated note, Audrey Hepburn died 31 years ago.

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

wonder if there is, or would ever be, any similar protection for physical likeness.

Yes, there is, even thought the need to execute such a right is quite rare.

It is not a derivate from copyright, as you might think, but a detail of your general personality rights (basic human rights).

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's not the legal situation in the US. I don't think this rather conservative take can be considered a global standard.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's not the legal situation in the US.

That's right. In Usa they have a rather poor understanding of human rights (and maybe even less acceptance)

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Funny. It's usually the US that's considered ultra-capitalist. The right to free expression is globally recognized. The idea that everything should be capital, generating rents for the rich, not so much.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't know why you are talking about capital here. It is not about capital at all when we talk about human rights.

The right to free expression is globally recognized

That's the one that is a little over-emphasized in Usa :) even though it is not the most important one. You should start to read about all the others as well.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

In economics, capital goods or capital are "those durable produced goods that are in turn used as productive inputs for further production" of goods and services. [...] Capital goods can also be immaterial, when they take the form of intellectual property. Many production processes require the intellectual property to (legally) produce their products. (From Wikipedia)

The bill in OP is about turning a person's likeness into capital. It will allow famous people to extract a rent from society. IE get free money at the expense of everyone else.

You should start to read about all the others as well.

I have. You haven't. You're an absolute tool.

[–] dch82@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 months ago

Also, do drawings and portrayals in media, etc. count?

[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

The "Stop Using AI to Make Videos of JD Fucking Couches and Dolphins" bill?

[–] 0x0@programming.dev -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So copyright laws done right for a change?

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

Don’t bank on it