The US Copyright Office offers creative workers a powerful labor protective.

  • Cabrio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Congratulations, you no longer have any ownership of AI generated deep fakes of yourself, these are now public domain.

    • whileloop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      1 year ago

      You do own your own likeness, though. So I think you probably have some right to prevent someone from making deep fakes of you.

        • AnonTwo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          33
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You can’t counter someones argument by just saying the same thing you know. He brings up a good point as you can in fact argue your likeness in court.

          This would likely require a court case but chances are the AI law would have to offer an exception to it.

          • ParkingPsychology@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            You can’t counter someones argument by just saying the same thing you know.

            Sure you can. You can also win any argument by replying “no you”. You just don’t leave a very good impression if you do that.

            He brings up a good point as you can in fact argue your likeness in court.

            This would likely require a court case but chances are the AI law would have to offer an exception to it.

            It’s probably just going to fall under existing law and the owner of the AI replaces the owner of the copy that was made (so same laws, no exception). Not sure what law that is exactly, but I assume it involves royalties and the like and there’s an exception for certain things, like news and maybe art.

            Here’s an article on it from the perspective of painting. I don’t see why it would any different if it’s an AI “painter”. It’s still technically painting what it does.

          • Cabrio@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There’s a nuanced difference between owning your likeness and owning your AI generated likeness, it will now be up to the courts as to which rights supercede the others and until then the law will be abused.

            You effectively no longer have any guaranteed control of the distribution of your AI likeness.

            • CileTheSane@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              “there’s a nuanced difference between owning your likeness and owning a drawing of your likeness…”

              • Cabrio@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                14
                ·
                1 year ago

                We’re talking specifically about AI generated content because that’s what the court case in the article ruled on, stay on topic. You just proved you don’t understand the nuance I’m talking about.

                • CileTheSane@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You just proved you don’t understand the nuance I’m talking about.

                  Translation: “I don’t have a rebuttal for your argument so I’m going to pretend it’s off topic.”

                  If you actually had an argument to make you would explain how the nuance was misunderstood and clarify what you meant. “You clearly don’t understand” just screams that you don’t have any foundational arguments for your claims.

                  You want to us to stay on topic?

                  Judge Beryl A Howell of the DC Circuit Court upheld a US Copyright Office ruling that works created by “AIs” are not eligible for copyright protection.

                  A work not being eligible for copyright protection does not mean it nullifies existing protections. If someone uses AI to generate an image of Ronald McDonald punching Mickey Mouse in the face and tries to sell it on a shirt they will get sued by both McDonald’s and Disney and they will lose easily.

                  “The courts have declared I don’t own the copyright for this” is not a defense for using protected images.

        • webghost0101
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just because (autonomous) ai works cant be copyrighted doesnt mean it cant infringe on copy right.

          But it does bring to mind who would be the offender?

        • Pseu@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Copyright is not ownership. You can own something, but not hold the copyright to it.

          Personality rights are also not copyright and as the ruling was not about personality rights, it did not affect these rights (where they exist in the US). Disregarding both AI and the recent ruling, if someone takes a photograph of you, you do not hold the copyright to it, the photographer does. If the photographer then does something with that image that harms your reputation you may be able to sue.

          And no, it is unlikely that there is a distinction between one’s likeness and “AI generated likeness,” it usually doesn’t matter if you use a photograph or a drawing of an individual, it is the identity that is protected regardless of what tool was used.

          • Cabrio@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            “Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.”

            I can commercialise your AI generated likeness freely under the new laws.

    • chameleon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t own a photo someone else made of you IRL either. Personality rights are closer to trademark.

      • Cabrio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is more about control of distribution than outright ownership. You can’t control the distribution of AI generated likenesses of yourself because they are now public domain, a photo someone takes is not public domain and not commercialisable without a release from the subject.

        • pwnicholson@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          At least in the USA: You absolutely can control the distribution of your likeness if it wasn’t taken in public.

          Photos of you in public can’t be controlled because you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. If someone takes a picture of you privately, even if not for commercial purposes, you can absolutely control the use of that image unless you release it.

          • Cabrio@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            But your AI generated likeness is now public domain, so explain how you have control over it’s distribution, it’s ok, I can keep repeating myself till everyone catches up.

            • harmonea@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              You can keep repeating yourself all day long; it’s clear you only read the clickbaity headline and not the article that clarified creative credit and copyright can’t be owned directly by an AI. Your entire premise is wrong.

        • chameleon@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Personality rights are not copyright. At all. It’s just that simple. Entirely different branch of law, enforced at an entirely different level in the US (state-specific instead of federal). Something can be totally free of copyright while also still being illegal to distribute for entirely different reasons.

            • chameleon@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s a somewhat unknown subject given the way personality rights are written across the globe (they are not consistent and some are built on an invasion of privacy scenario only). Deepfake porn lives in extremely muddy largely-untouched ground. But if it is illegal, it would simply never happen under copyright law, and this ruling does not affect it.

              Let me put it this way: If I break into your house and film you doing whatever then post it on YouTube, it’ll end up getting me penalized for breaking and entering, property damage, violation of privacy and who knows what else; probably a huge laundry list that’ll land me locked up for a good chunk of time and you’d win on all those counts. But one you’re extremely unlikely to win is copyright, unless I happen to film something like some piece of art you’ve made yourself in the process.

              • Cabrio@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                It seems the point is moot, the article was editorialised, the ruling didn’t make AI generated material public domain. It just stated that AI couldn’t be the copyright holder for the created materials.

    • MIDItheKID@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh man… I don’t even know how to tackle the legislature needed to handle AI content correctly, but I can tell you that the dinosaurs in office have even less of an idea. If we continue the path of corporations paying off politicians, which doesn’t seem like it has an end in sight… We are about to have some new problems that 5 years ago nobody even thought of.

      I miss the old internet. Shit has gotten way out of hand and there is no stopping it.

    • macrocephalic@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Depending on the jurisdiction, you never had those rights. In Australia anyone is free to take your picture in (or from) a public space. The only issue is when that photo is used to damage the subject - and that is done under defamation laws. In the US the photographer owns the rights to a photograph unless there are other contractual stipulations - even if you are the subject of the photograph.