The same goes for actors and their likenesses ... just stop protecting ultra wealthy celebrities. They'll be a bit poorer, but they're going to be okay. You're just holding back progress
I can imagine in a decade some place like China which doesn't care about protecting celebrities will have movies with dozens of Tom Cruises Arnolds and Johansson's and will just be pumping out better quality content at affordable budgets. Young talented directors won't be hamstrung by these legal roadblocks
What? Nobody is banning OpenAI from licensing voices. The censure is on, at the very least, using an unlicensed likeness to promote their new products without compensation. (Assuming Sky truly is a clean-room product.)
Likeness just became a tradeable product. That wasn't true before. The better analogy is in recognising mineral rights, including crude oil, after the utility of it was recognised and traded on [1].
> ultra wealthy celebrities
We have a hundred millionaire atop a multi-billion dollar industry fighting a billionaire atop a multi-billion dollar company. Nobody gets to cry poverty.
> can imagine in a decade some place like China which doesn't care about protecting celebrities
Would positively love to see Altman try to pull this stunt with Xi Jinping's voice.
[1] https://info.courthousedirect.com/blog/history-of-mineral-ri...
I agree that the technology is great, and it will empower small creators, but I'm also worried about the cowboy behaviour of all these tech billionaires.
deliver all discussions on Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era via an animated Pooh Bear with the voice from the movie.
https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/23/china_xi_jinping_chat...
If you record my voice at a conference and then create a synthetic replica.. why would I care? You didn't make me do any additional work or anything
Only because the government is making it that way. It's not an inevitability. It's a shortsighted move that doesn't add any value to society. It only serves to make celebrities even more wealthy
Why should the creative sources (artists, actors, writers, etc.) be left out of the cut, while the tech companies are reaping the rewards?
"But those stars are rich, they'll survive."
Yeah, maybe - but the creative world is 0.001% wealthy people, and the rest being people that barely get by - and could earn more money by doing pretty much anything else.
I get the argument about copyright protections stifling progress, but it bugs me something fierce that people here are essentially saying it's OK for the AI/ML creators to become filthy rich, while the people they are ripping off should just do something else.
Likeness wasn’t mass producible. It is now. That isn’t because of government but technology.
> doesn't add any value to society
According to whom? Certainly not Johansson or OpenAI.
> only serves to make celebrities even more wealthy
You don’t see how an entry-level actor doesn’t benefit from their first short skit being a substitute for a life’s work?
In the case of a pornographic video there is no issue if it's clear from the context or content that it isn't actually me doing what's in the video
When you talk to ChatGPT, I don't actually think Scarlett Johansson is speaking to me
If I make a fake phone call recording with her synethetic voice and claim it's real and it somehow hurts her then that's an issue - but that's a different legal matter entirely
My reaction would never be "we must make it so people can't do deepfakes anymore". That would cause people to stop using it for positive/benign things as well. If someone is spreading deepfake porn of someone, and you could make the case that they are doing so in order to harm that person's reputation, then legal action would make sense, I think.
Say you wake up one day, and find out some AI copy made a digital twin/clone out of you. Your voice, your looks, your style of writing, your style of speaking. Everything that is you, they've cloned.
And then they use a digital you in commercials, movies, or whatever. And, of course, you're not entitled to a single cent - because it's not you, just something that looks, sounds, and acts like you. Hell, no mater how much you hate the use, there's nothing that can be done - because this is for the greater good of tech progress.
This is some pretty fundamental stuff that needs to be sorted out, ASAP.
I'm not buying that people here are "fine" with this. This is one of those things people might be fine with, until they find themselves in that exact spot.
Now, what kind of people will find themselves in that spot? Celebrities, obviously.
One thing is being used in material that will defame your character (spam, fraud, porn, whatever) - another thing is to be used in material that will potentially take away your livelihood.
If someone clone, say, Tom Cruise - and makes a movie with his digital twin, he sure as shit is entitled to royalties for that. People go to see the movie because they think it is Tom Cruise, not because it's some generic AI avatar of him.
That's a deepfake problem but not porn problem. "Deepfake == porn" characterization is not helpful if those are the real problems.
A measure of similarity? Then I demand all people sounding like me to license their voice from me.
A claim that the voice originates from a certain person? Then you don't need any licensing in this case.
If people make videos of me having sex, or fighting aliens or selling laundry detergent.. again.. why should I care?
As long as nobody is saying "Hey you're actually talking to Scarlett live right now!" it's not hurting her.
You're basically suggesting that it's okay to copy anyone's voice and appearance without ever giving them compensation and without regard to personality rights. That's insane. Even for someone who thinks this should be allowed in principle (I certainly don't think so), there would need to be strict safeguards. Or, do you want your person and voice to appear in a commercial for <insert organization, product, or cause you don't support at all and despise>?
I'm gonna suggest that people who are blase about this issue are comfortable in the knowledge that it will never affect them. HN contributors might have 99+ problems, but being lusted over by the internet at large isn't one of them.
I'm not sure. Precedented personality rights would be a good place to start [1].
I'd argue for a higher standard of evidence for human-produced voices, Middler v. Ford Motor Co. seems good as any [2]. But a lower burden for synthesised voices, given the difficulty in proving intent and mass producibility of them.
> A claim that the voice originates from a certain person? Then you don't need any licensing in this case
Altman basically claimed as much by tweeting about Her in its context. At that point, he is using her fame to market his products without her permission.
Or do you suggest to have different laws for celebrities and poor actors?
What would be this clear distinction if the internet was spammed full of you doing things you would never do? Why should anyone care to find out the real you amongst the fake ones?
So you basically are saying that in these cases law system should have a precedent against deepfakes so that you would be to able to argue on some basis against deepfakes made off of you.
The people now getting concerned about this are setting those precedents, so that when shit hits the fan in your life (it probably won't), you will have an easier path in the court.
But anyways different times + Eminem rapped about copycat rappers and not about someone deepfaking your whole being on the internet.
If a director makes a movie with AI Tom Cruise it's not ambiguous if the real Tom Cruise participated or not. The goal is not to fool everyone to think he was in it (b/c that would be trivially denied by the real man). There is a list of credits at the end if you're somehow confused. So if the movie is about drowning Scientologists, you'll know it's not supported by the real Tom Cruise
It's similar to if you were to paint a picture of him sodomizing a goat. You don't immediately think "damn, he's a real sick bastard". You just assume it's a fake things created by the creator/director. Nobody is hurt (well maybe his feelings a bit)
If you do make a thing that confuses people and makes them thing it's the real Tom Cruise and he's somehow hurt by this then that's kinda messed up and should be illegal.
In this case with the AI chatbot it's not confusing. I don't think Scarlett is on the other end of the line. Everyone knows it's not really her. It just sounds like her
And in a world where there are deepfakes of every famous person.. People will finally stop trusting everything they see online. With the way things are going at the moment we're going to get to that point with or without legislation. Realistically you just won't be able to ban deep fakes worldwide. People will just assume if they come across a video online that it's fake - as they should be doing already in all honesty
If you made a concerted effort to fool people into thinking it's the real person then it'd be illegal. Especially if you're out to hurt them somehow. In the same vein as libel
Regardless of what me and you think this just seems inevitable and we're all just going to have to get used to it. Just like you can't stop people from drawing and painting other people - you won't be able to stop people from using AI to render their image/voice. It's all getting cheaper and more accessibly
I mean, honestly, I think it's kind of bizarre that you think a Chinese movie maker could make a film with a digitally cloned Tom Cruise in it and get away with it. Maybe in China, but not in the rest of the world.
It just goes against the whole cyberpunk future we grow up dreaming about. Against the A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace and all that. I think in the end the bureaucrats won't win though. It just slows down the inevitable.
As always it'll probably start with porn. There will be porn of everyone and it'll be shared. Then that will become normalized. Then it'll spread into other more socially acceptable areas. Maybe first under the guise of "parody" and then it'll just become normal. Just how streaming and pirating has made music sales irrelevant. Now musicians make money with concerts.. and somehow the famous ones are still filthy rich. Didn't seem to hurt them one bit.
I'm sure the Tom Cruises of the future can still go to conventions and give speeches at private events.
(No no, you're perfectly right [except perhaps about "the technology is great, and it will empower small creators"], but yagotta admit, your example in justaposition with your user id is funny.)
Are there actually any "benign" uses for deepfakes?
At least the second time I've seen you making that argument on this page. So however long it was between your (at least) two comments to this effect, apparently it wasn't long enough for you to realise that the whole purpose of deepfake technology is to make it NOT "clear" that it's not actually you and you're not personally endorsing the product.
So the world you want to live in is a Neuromancer dystopia, check.
> All to protect the rich bastards and entrenched interest.
Yeah, because that's not at all what the "AI" tech bros you want to protect are, right?
And in a world where there are deepfakes of every person, famous or not... People won't be able to trust anything they see anywhere. Welcome to Hell.