• ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    This genie is probably impossible to get back in the bottle.

    People are going to just direct the imitative so called AI program to make the face just different enough to have plausible deniability that it’s a fake of this person or that person. Or use existing tech to age them to 18+ (or 30+ or whatever). Or darken or lighten their skin or change their eye or hair color. Or add tattoos or piercings or scars…

    I’m not saying we should be happy about it, but it is here and I don’t think it’s going anywhere. Like, if you tell your so called AI to give you a completely fictional nude image or animation of someone that looks similar to Taylor Swift but isn’t Taylor Swift, what’s the privacy (or other) violation, exactly?

    Does Taylor Swift own every likeness that looks somewhat like hers?

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s also not a new thing. It’s just suddenly much easier for the layman to do. Previously, you needed some really good photoshop skills to pull it off. But you could make fake nudes if you really wanted to, and were willing to put in the time and effort.

    • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      If the prompt includes “Taylor swift” or an image of her. Then it doesn’t matter if the AI slightly changed it, it used her likeness to generate the image and so she should have rights to the image and the ability to claim damages.

      The same thing should apply to using deepfake porn AIs to make non consensual nudes of private person, or heck manually creating nonconsensual deepfake nudes should also fall under the same definition

      • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        This is not how it works. Paparazzi that take her image own the rights to the image. Not Taylor Swift. They make the money on the image when they sell it and Taylor Swift gets nothing out of the sale and has no rights on that transaction. If you’re in public you can be photographed. If a photographer takes an image and releases it to public domain, the subjects of the image will have no say in it unless the photographer broke some other law. (Eg peeping Tom laws or stalking)