The Regulation Podcast is a podcasting group based on Austin, Texas, but one member lives in Vancouver. They recently bought him one of these robots for their office, and he just goes around knocking over pop cans, yelling at them from the floor, and generally causing chaos.
This group includes Gavin Free from the Slow Mo Guys and Geoff Ramsey, one of the founders of Rooster Teeth, by the way.
*le sigh* in my 20s I worked in International Development and to keep myself sane I always was comforted by being seperated from it all because I lived in the US. It kills me to be 40 and be the other side knowing the US would never step up for me like that
"kid me" is fair game for someone trying to impersonate a teen nerd... Good luck to whatever dumb asses think that will be useful so many years too late.
We definitely need this so people don't have to copyright their likeness through court and fees. I think this is important back around 2000, one the Japanese companies wanted to sell their "CGI actors" to various CGI studios. The company went bankrupt after one film, but with AI and facial scanning, there's little to stop a company from starting using voices and faces to profit off the general likeness, or even a dead celebrity.
One issue is lookalikes. How do you deal with that?
Look. I live & vote in Denmark. I guarantee you that a law like this will be written about as incompetently as any law written anywhere else. A few of the intentions are probably fine, but we have the stupidest people in charge here & they are all fully convinced they are perfect and will not engage specialist subject matter experts when writing the law.
Yes, they would do well to copy existing workable legislation. Unfortunately, we have a showstopper in the part where "they are all fully convinced they are perfect". And learning from anything foreign (even + including Germany & the Nordic countries) is not in their playbook.
Why does this case illustrate a need for nuance? If he has been right, he would have been justified in challenging the unlicensed use of his image. But he was wrong, and the case was thrown out.
If the existing law is already good enough to protect people, why make additional laws? The nuance is necessary to cover gaps in existing laws while not making usage of a person's image overly difficult, especially because many people look similar under certain circumstances.
But if you can clearly point at someone and say "it's not you, it's this other person, from whom we got permission" and can produce the other person and permission, case closed. The "similar looking person" argument holds no water whatsoever.
Because what if you have two people who look so alike this mistake could be made? Does the younger person have to pay the older for licensing rights to their own face?
Because copyright belongs to whoever creates the work, not the subject of the work. Continental European copyright law has a different foundation than US law. Our law is only constitutional to the extent that it promotes the progress of science and the useful arts. It is a temporary monopoly afforded creators in a contract with the USG in exchange for sharing the invention and, in time, gifting it to the public domain. We offer this limited monopoly only for the benefit we derive from it.
I mean, in general, images taken in public aren't protected in most countries. The copyright belongs to the photographer, not the person depicted. This law could change that if adopten in those countries, which is the thing that requires nuance.
That doesn't fully apply here because the magazine used his image to illustrate an article, which is a commercial use of the image assuming magazine has a paid subscription model. Commercial use of people's likenesses do require contractual model release from the subject in US law.
And what does it need nuance for. I fully support the people that get photographed have a say in copyright. It would also curtail paparazzi. For sporting events you just need a waiver when using the ticket.
And the cops, soldiers, ice agents etc, they get to conveniently prevent media and people filming them too. News without pictures and video don't tend to get a lot of coverage.
That's the nuance. If someone took a picture of a protest with thousands of people, they could not feasibly get thousands of waivers. But that's something that needs to be documented and the person who documents it needs fair compensation through the rights to their photo. Paparazzi is a harassment problem, not copyright -- I doubt much would change.
I have heard nothing of this and I am currently in Denmark. And I have been for most of 53 years. Even have a decent grasp of the language...me being Danish and all.
Jeg havde læst lidt om det, men da jeg prøvede at google et link til dig, kom der intet relevant frem, kun googles eget ai lort. Så det er begravet lidt i clutter.
Spanky93
Rump-ill-oldskin would refuse. He’s personally making too much money from the scammers errrr lobbyist/donations to care.
Sakkura
It's not a general copyright, it's a specific ban on deepfakes. Exceptions are made for things like parody and satire.
Aaron42J
The Regulation Podcast is a podcasting group based on Austin, Texas, but one member lives in Vancouver. They recently bought him one of these robots for their office, and he just goes around knocking over pop cans, yelling at them from the floor, and generally causing chaos.
This group includes Gavin Free from the Slow Mo Guys and Geoff Ramsey, one of the founders of Rooster Teeth, by the way.
ThoseRulesArentReal
*le sigh* in my 20s I worked in International Development and to keep myself sane I always was comforted by being seperated from it all because I lived in the US. It kills me to be 40 and be the other side knowing the US would never step up for me like that
WeAreEmptySpace
F*** this. clickbait bullsit AND helping techbros in the same time.
tzahtman
Mexico recently ruled AI generated works are considered public domain. https://mexicobusiness.news/cloudanddata/news/scjn-declares-ai-generated-works-are-public-domain-mexico
andexer
The US has this, but only for the famous. It's call the "right of publicity."
This is good as a longstanding, functioning PoC for giving people IP rights over themselves.
SFuhr
What bout Twins and Lookalikes?
surroundedbytwits
Of course our country can’t do something that smart.
DrasticBastard
I mean, we still can’t give women rights to their own bodies here!
surroundedbytwits
That is very true. We are going in the wrong direction on that issue!
geraltofriva
On the other hand Denmark wants access to all private online communication. That's weird man, that's weird.
friendsofsandwiches
that's only good for 20 years though, isn't it?
gilliamv
"kid me" is fair game for someone trying to impersonate a teen nerd... Good luck to whatever dumb asses think that will be useful so many years too late.
ScienceIsNotALiberalConspiracy
Starting from....when?
SilentScreamsX
Seems like common sense, which means we'll have to fight like hell to get it implemented in most of the world.
witless1
Yeah that won't happen in the US. Tech bros are big supporters of politicians.
UnityInArms
I would have just said bribed.
zombiejedediah
Oh, we do that here in Denmark as well.
Most major parties receive "donations" from corporations & industry organisations.
Jonesso
more like big supporters of just ignoring laws
gilliamv
Choppy chop, eh?
VictusVonGuyver
We definitely need this so people don't have to copyright their likeness through court and fees. I think this is important back around 2000, one the Japanese companies wanted to sell their "CGI actors" to various CGI studios. The company went bankrupt after one film, but with AI and facial scanning, there's little to stop a company from starting using voices and faces to profit off the general likeness, or even a dead celebrity.
One issue is lookalikes. How do you deal with that?
Zeega
Fun living in Greedtopia isn’t it? Republicans and Christians love greed.
ThrowTheAccountAway
The US government is literally privatizing your federal data, and actively working on privatizing your health and location data.
KrampusCopia
Didn't they include a 10 year provision in the BBB that made it so we couldn't make laws about AI?
JohnSmithterms
It wont happen in the us because americans dont protest by building guilotines like we do in europe. Get serious about politics and it will change.
zombiejedediah
Look.
I live & vote in Denmark. I guarantee you that a law like this will be written about as incompetently as any law written anywhere else.
A few of the intentions are probably fine, but we have the stupidest people in charge here & they are all fully convinced they are perfect and will not engage specialist subject matter experts when writing the law.
EmanNiemThcin
Feel free to copy paste neighbour https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild_(Deutschland)?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en
zombiejedediah
Yes, they would do well to copy existing workable legislation. Unfortunately, we have a showstopper in the part where "they are all fully convinced they are perfect". And learning from anything foreign (even + including Germany & the Nordic countries) is not in their playbook.
AgamemnonsMemes
It won't protect anything, it'll just make suing easier.
arrogantengineer
But will it work?
Wuz314159
Can I trade it in for a better one?
Tenugui
In general I support this, but there needs to be some nuance to the law
PlanckEraWasMyBestEra
Henry Cavill in court about to sue David Corenswet's parents lol
LastOnTheBall
Ouch!
somethingnotyettaken
If you're an identical twin, does the older one own the copyright to the likeness of the younger one?
KevinStrexcorp
Why does this case illustrate a need for nuance? If he has been right, he would have been justified in challenging the unlicensed use of his image. But he was wrong, and the case was thrown out.
CreatureFromtheBlackLegume
Because AI could just tweak a face slightly and be like "it's not that person, even though it looks like them a lot"
Tenugui
If the existing law is already good enough to protect people, why make additional laws? The nuance is necessary to cover gaps in existing laws while not making usage of a person's image overly difficult, especially because many people look similar under certain circumstances.
KevinStrexcorp
But if you can clearly point at someone and say "it's not you, it's this other person, from whom we got permission" and can produce the other person and permission, case closed. The "similar looking person" argument holds no water whatsoever.
LeMegachonk
Because what if you have two people who look so alike this mistake could be made? Does the younger person have to pay the older for licensing rights to their own face?
gesel
Because copyright belongs to whoever creates the work, not the subject of the work. Continental European copyright law has a different foundation than US law. Our law is only constitutional to the extent that it promotes the progress of science and the useful arts. It is a temporary monopoly afforded creators in a contract with the USG in exchange for sharing the invention and, in time, gifting it to the public domain. We offer this limited monopoly only for the benefit we derive from it.
avavilina
I mean, in general, images taken in public aren't protected in most countries. The copyright belongs to the photographer, not the person depicted. This law could change that if adopten in those countries, which is the thing that requires nuance.
ConfederacyOfDunces
That doesn't fully apply here because the magazine used his image to illustrate an article, which is a commercial use of the image assuming magazine has a paid subscription model. Commercial use of people's likenesses do require contractual model release from the subject in US law.
ConfederacyOfDunces
Whoever downvoted me, wanna tell me why I'm wrong?
martineb72
And what does it need nuance for. I fully support the people that get photographed have a say in copyright. It would also curtail paparazzi. For sporting events you just need a waiver when using the ticket.
VeganFeministFlatEarther
"And what does it need nuance for?" >Proceeds to immediately mention a situation where nuance would be necessary (sporting events)
JohnEdwa
And the cops, soldiers, ice agents etc, they get to conveniently prevent media and people filming them too. News without pictures and video don't tend to get a lot of coverage.
sendmeyourfrenchies
That's the nuance. If someone took a picture of a protest with thousands of people, they could not feasibly get thousands of waivers. But that's something that needs to be documented and the person who documents it needs fair compensation through the rights to their photo. Paparazzi is a harassment problem, not copyright -- I doubt much would change.
NearHereThere
sauce?
Sakkura
Most sources are in Danish. Here's the parliamentary hearing letter about the proposal: https://prodstoragehoeringspo.blob.core.windows.net/92ca118f-cd2c-4558-a6a9-f590c111bd67/Forslag%20til%20lov%20om%20%C3%A6ndring%20af%20lov%20om%20ophavsret%20(Indf%C3%B8relse%20af%20en%20pr%C3%A6stationsbeskyttelse%20og%20beskyttelse%20mod%20digitalt%20genererede%20efterligninger%20mv.).pdf
jekath
I have heard nothing of this and I am currently in Denmark. And I have been for most of 53 years. Even have a decent grasp of the language...me being Danish and all.
Klan00
Der har været snakket om det længe, direkte fra ministeriet: https://kum.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/bred-aftale-om-deepfakes-giver-alle-ret-til-egen-krop-og-egen-stemme
Djchoragos
nå tak for det
jekath
Åh, jeg har da slet ikke fulgt med, åbenbart. Tak.
Klan00
Jeg havde læst lidt om det, men da jeg prøvede at google et link til dig, kom der intet relevant frem, kun googles eget ai lort. Så det er begravet lidt i clutter.
kahooki
I read all of that with a potato in my mouth.