Twenty years ago: "Nobody should be ashamed of sex or nudity! Anything goes!"
The same people, now: "SHAME ON EVERYONE!"
A machine-learning-powered perv super-tool that automagically removed clothes from women in photos to make them appear naked has been torn offline by its makers. The shamefaced creators of the $50 Windows and Linux desktop app DeepNude claimed they were overwhelmed by demand from internet creeps: the developers' servers …
Another person who fails to understand 'consent.'
Plenty of adult people willingly post nudes of themselves on the internet. That isn't the problem.
But the people being targeted by this app have not likely consented to their nudes being publicly posted.
Is that so hard to understand? Apparently.
> But the people being targeted by this app have not likely consented to their nudes being publicly posted.
What's being posted is not 'their nudes'. Try again, this time appreciating the subtlety of what's going on here. A more realistic response would be that they didn't consent to any part of any photograph of them being used, which is a fair and reasonable response. However, in many cases that's exactly wrong, and what to do then?
What's being posted is not 'their nudes'
It's not. In the same sense if I posted pictures of you having sex with a goat and eating babies (or, you know, the other way around perhaps), they would not actually be actual photographs of you: they'd be faked. And I expect you would still be upset about it.
If you think that whether the photographs are 'real' or not matters, you entirely fail to understand the problem.
But the people being targeted by this app have not likely consented to their nudes being publicly posted.
The need to obtain consent for taking or even publishing a person's image is a pretty grey area.
There are a huge number of people who get published in the media but did not consent to having their image published and most certainly would not have consented had they had a choice. Just about everyone accused of a titillating crime, for starters. So where should we draw the line between demanding that people get permission and not requiring it?
If I take a photo of Trafalgar Square or a wide shot of crowded beach, it would be ridiculous to ask everyone who will be in the photo for their consent. But what if there are just a couple of close-by strangers in the frame? What if those strangers are children? How about if the children are dressed for swimming? How about if they are naked in a public place such as a beach?
The need to obtain consent for taking or even publishing a person's image is a pretty grey area.
It's not that murky.
Personal use: Fine, whatevs. There's no expectation of privacy in a public place (perving through windows is obviously out).
Commercial use - Incidental individuals (e.g. panorama of Trafalgar square): Fine.
Commercial use - Prime focus (recognisable individuals as focal point of image): Need a model release
Advertising use - Need a model release
Journalism: Ah, well here the cesspool overflows. Define "Public Interest"
None of which validates the fake-nuding of arbitrary individuals. It's the moral equivalent of putting spy cameras in a hotel bathroom.
In the first place, is it "the same people"? You would need to cite specific names and posts to establish that.
in the second place, your starting and final positions look like caricatures. If they are only slightly more nuanced, your point disappears. For instance, "should" can cover a wide range of meanings, from "this is how things would be in an ideal world" to "everyone is morally obliged to feel this way" - there's a lot of ground between those positions.
In the third place, lots of things have changed in the past 20 years. If you haven't changed your mind about anything in that time, you're not thinking.
In the fourth place, "SHAME ON EVERYONE!" is a strawman position in itself. If you really don't think there's something a bit off about faking nude photos of real people and distributing them on the Internet, then please come out and say so - then we can argue that case on its merits, whatever they may be.
Now there's a variant of rock-paper-scissors Id like to play
Gandalf kills Thorin.
Dinosaur eats Gandalf.
Thorin bores Dinosaur to death.
Invent appropriate hand gestures1 and Bob's your uncle.
1I have one for the entire fatuous LotR trilogy, but it doesn't work in this context.
No person should be shamed of sex or nudity, though if you saw me nude you'd really regret that stance.
But, here is the thing, no person other than myself has the right to display me nude, I could take a million photos of myself naked and post them to "omfg.how.horrible.com.net.org", nobody though has the right to take my photo from "diy.plastic.surgery.net.org.uk.com" and then remove my clothing.
There are plenty of women I would love to see naked, the odds of me ever seeing them naked are along the lines of 0.000000000000000%, this does not give me the right to create fake images of them naked, it also doesn't give me the right to view images of them naked that they didn't give permission to be published (i.e. the fappening).
Respect yourself, respect other people, how can that be complicated?
We have EVERY right. It's in the Berne Convrntion: COPYright. We ARE entitled to use caricatures and other resemblances so long as they're made up. If you don't like someone lampooning you, never show your face, period. Otherwise, simply learn to roll with the virtual punches until someone PHYSICALLY punches you (then it's assault).
"as well as the fact that any image used without consent in the UK is illegal"
No it's not, if you take a picture in a public place you own it and do what the hell you want with it. If taken on private property then the land owner owns it and you have to ask permission to publish it.
If taken on private property then the land owner owns it and you have to ask permission to publish it.
Well, not exactly. The subject (not necessarily the landowner) retains the rights to their likeness (if they're not being paid for it). The photographer owns the copyright.
A wedding photographer keeps the copyright to their images (unless they surrender it in the contract), but the subjects have the right to their likeness and the photographer can't go and sell their image commercially, on a stock-photo site or place it for advertising without model release.
If someone like Chanel run a photoshoot, then they'll probably take all the rights - their photos to use for any commercial purpose in perpetuity. Photographer and models will be "Work for hire" - signing off the rights (for a larger upfront rate). Unless your name is Annie Leibovitz, in which case a different contract will be negotiated.
In the UK, there are several laws that cover this including the European Convention on Human Rights. It's also covered by the voyeurism law as well as the fact that any image used without consent in the UK is illegal.
You are wrong on every single point.
1) The HRA applies only to governments (and those acting on behalf of a government). The laws do not apply directly to individuals and no private individual can be prosecuted under the HRA.
2) Voyeurism requires that a person be watched or photographed in a place where they could reasonably expect privacy. It does not cover the situation of someone being photographed in a public place and then photoshopped.
3) It is not illegal to "use" a photograph (whatever that means) without the consent of the subject. If that were the case then press photographers would all have been convicted long ago.
There are however a few crimes that may be applicable. Fraud is one if the person posting the photograph did not make it clear that it was fake, and harassment or various public order offences are another area where a prosecution may succeed.
Well, given that a certain "social" network started its wretched existence as something slightly similar offering photos compiled from online facebooks and asking users to choose the "hotter" person, how long before Zuckerberg buys up Deepnude and offers it up to his online minions?
if there are ANY MEN who are PROTESTING this, then you DESERVE to have your MAN CARD REVOKED!!! (what nobody ELSE had the GONADS to say this?)
Benny Hill indeed!
/me plays 'Yackity Sax' in his honor while reading porno mags
Just to make a point - being a GENETIC HYPER MALE [as evidenced by my ring finger being longer than my 1st finger] I'd just like to point out that *MY* *LIFESTYLE* *MUST* *BE* *EMBRACED* because I have a GENETIC PRE-DISPOSITION to wanting to SEE NAKED WOMEN [particularly younger than 25] and I just can NOT help myself, for _I_ have a GENETICALLY PRE-DISPOSED CONDITION.
And because I was BORN THAT WAY, *THE* *WORLD* *MUST* *ACCEPT* *MY* *BEHAVIOR*!
[after all _I_ must accept/embrace OTHER people's behavior when it's pre-disposed and 'born that way', right???]
heh heh heh
[tedious 'ironic' diatribe elided] a GENETIC PRE-DISPOSITION to wanting to SEE NAKED WOMEN [particularly younger than 25] and I just can NOT help myself [more tedious idiocy elided]
I'll tell you a secret: there's this new-fangled thing called 'the interweb' (I think) and it's absolutely full of pictures of naked women.
But that's not why you want to complain about this, is it? You want to complain about this because you want to have a good wank looking at naked pictures of Jennifer Lawrence, and you're not going to let the inconvenient fact that she doesn't want to let you have naked pictures of her you get in your way, so you'll use a tool which will make up pictures of her.
That doesn't make you a man with man's rights: it makes you a creep.
Where can I get a co...
Not to worry, bootleg copies of both the free and premium versions will be available from a variety of sources within a few days. If they aren't out there already.
Of course, the bootleg copies will mostly be loaded with about six dozen different kinds of malware. But what the heck. If this sort of stuff appeals to you, your computers are probably already pwned.
No rush. Bootleg copies will doubtless continue to be available for decades. With up to date and ever improving malware suites.
I think that by the time I got into my 30s I had seen real naked women enough times that I wouldn’t my eyes from a Register article if one was dancing in front of me.
When I was 15 I was as curious as hell to see one and it was lucky there no www.
So apps like this? Yaawwwwnn and tell them to grow up.
I remember it. But, the line was; "I'd buy the for a dollar", not "I'll" (Yeah, I'm being a picky old bastard ;-D). The line's great, been using it for years. Mostly in inappropriate situations.
As for the software, meh. Can draw up my own nudies using the GIMP, my Wacom, and a base photo or two of whoever I want the subject to be. Kids these days have to have an app to do everything for them. Yawn. Slackers.
Its as old as the internet, its not even like this is first time its been an "epidemic" was hard to move on angelfire (geocities seemed to be more proactive at pr0n blocking) for all the Gillian Anderson, Terri Hatcher, Buffy, DS9 and 7of9 nudes in the mid to late '90's
Of course the difference was it required photo editing skills and wasnt a drag and drop spit it out 0 legitimate use software
all the Gillian Anderson, Terri Hatcher, Buffy, DS9 and 7of9 nudes in the mid to late '90's
Hell, I remember when someone1 posted a link on alt.fan.tiny-toon-adventures to a GIF of Babs Bunny with Sherilyn Fenn's breasts 'shopped on. That must have been 1991. I suppose that's a celebrity fake of a sort, though a bit further out in the fantasy realm than some. (And not nearly as far as some others, of course. Rule 34 and all.)
1I'm fairly sure I remember who it was, but either that information is readily available to Internet archaeologists (I haven't bothered searching), in which case there's no need for me to say; or it isn't, and I'll refrain from dredging up possibly-embarrassing deeds from someone's youth.
So who will get the rap if somebody's deepnude get posted and said person want to take that to court
It wouldn't be the first time nor would it be the last. Newspapers and scandal rags have been doing it for decades and occasionally lawsuits have been issued*. In the computer age, a bit of photoshop, etc. and it continued. The computer has made it easier and this "app" will make it even easier. Normally, I'm normally not a judgemental person, but this is something was never "right" no matter who did it or for what reason. Now that it's easy for the masses to do it suddenly everyone is up in arms.
*Not often though due to the Streisand Effect.
The rest of the world is not the US.
In the UK we have the 1997 Act. And as has been explained:
"The law states that harassment is when a person behaves in a way which is intended to cause you distress or alarm. The behaviour must happen on more than one occasion. ... For example, one text message intended to distress you is not harassment. Two text messages may be harassment."
In the UK, upset feelings are indeed covered by law.
Posting one fake to one site, you might get away with it. Post two, or to two or more sites, and you may well have committed an offence.
Notice the importance of intention.
Someone who comes across a nude of you on the Net and cross posts it is OK if they just thought it was a nice picture. Someone who deliberately makes a fake and gets caught has no defence. (Unless they try on "Aspergers" - which courts are increasingly wise to.)
"This software was almost certainly written by people who have never had a FEMINIST girlfriend"
Fixed it for ya!!! Though I suppose 'westernized' or 'feminized' might have worked as well...
when I saw the 'm' word (misogynist) in the article, I knew it had been written from the wrong perspective.
COME ON, people, THIS IS FUNNY STUFF! Fake 'nude' photos of ANYBODY? What, nobody's seen heads glued onto existing porn before? Only NOW it's even FUNNIER!!!
And yeah a few people out there might get their jollies with it but who cares. People do what they do, and being PRUDISH and UNNECESSARILY JUDGING about it just makes you out to being some kind of NINNY NANNY that wants to CONTROL people or something.
And you wonder why the birth rate is dropping...
""And you wonder why the birth rate is dropping...""
I think you just put your finger on the main reason for why it's perfectly ok to show someone being murdered in a PG film, but woe betide the film maker that puts a flash of tiddy, or gosh even worse some bush. Because this way, people are more likely to be violent than in a relationship, so more people are eradicated from the earth, much to David Attenborough's delight.
The birthrate is dropping because:
1. immunisation and antibiotics etc mean 99% of your kids grow to give you grandkids and look after you in old age or at least pretend not to have heard that story before.
2. Education of and rights enforcement for women meaning they can decide how many kids to have.
4 Sprogs are expensive to raise and of course if you have more than two and you are made unemployed you only get funding for 2.
1) Birthrate has been severely impacted by women in the workforce, the social norm changing to allow same-sex marriage, etc. But sure, I'll give you this one as a possible minor factor as there's a lot more to it than that.
2) Despite it's current charming assertion, feminism is wrong on this one: women chose to have less rights as they didn't want the responsibility that followed. That is, to serve in wartime (and yes that was a different time to what we live in now). This affected the ability to vote and own property - certainly if you were unwilling to fight, how could you be expected to be accountable for choosing leadership and protecting your property from brigands and other low lives?
3) Genesis 38:9; God actually killed a man for spilling his seed on the ground instead of taking up his family obligation of propagating further life. Too "subjective"? Ok, according to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649591/ the ancient Egyptians had condom-like caps, and the same resource speaks about the sponges that were used at one point too (female side), and douching which was popular at one point. Here's another resource: https://www.verywellhealth.com/the-history-of-condoms-48689
4) That doesn't apply to every country; so it's not a universal factor. As well, we have more jobs than we have people currently in the US. Indeed, some countries give you nothing, others give you more. So... I don't see that as a factor.
I don't get it.
It's not undressing the woman pictured. It's just applying some AI painting algorithm that knows a lot about flesh tones and female body parts to render a potential naked body for the woman. What's the flipping point? What do you get out of this? Just find a similar looking woman on one of those naughty video sites and let off your incel issues there instead.
What ever happened to the old fashioned sneaking around the bushes outside their house with a camera eh? Or the more modern Drone with Camera outside Bedroom Window? Sheesh! People these days! No get up and go.
Because with a massive sweeping generalization here: Its software for mums spare room dwelling 40 year old virgins/devoted husbands to lady palm and her 5 daughters/comic book guy from the simpsons, the demographic who vocally complain that the women in the dead or alive games should have even skimpier outfits, or that lara croft is still (and ever was) a sex symbol to them, and didnt like the redesign that came with the reboot, or that tifa in the final fantasy VII remake's boobs are to small
So all that matters to them is bewbs and noodz, real or fake makes no odds
well seeing Mrs. Clinton naked [even if faked] *WOULD* be a crime against humanity!
this reminds me of a Beavis and Butthead parody done by Imus...
"Beavis: Which would you rather do - slide down a razor blade bannister into tub of alcohol, or kiss [insert unattractive and/or ball-busting female politician and/or activist name here] on the mouth, with tongue?"
"Butthead: How long is the bannister?"
(best of my recollection anyway)
why I'm a weirdo because I want to see a (fake) woman naked? I thought that 99.99% majority would want that, although they're wiser now not to voice it?
p.s. How's that a superwoman beating males on a screen to a pulp is "empowering", and a male doing the same to the woman is "not acceptable in the modern day and age society"?
It's because the world is run by men. A superwoman beating males to a pulp is just something you only see on a screen whereas you don't have to look far to see men beating women in real life.
Liking to look at naked women is not the same as liking to look at naked women who don't want to be seen naked. In the second case, the one you're on about, it's weird because it's not about seeing boobs, it's aboout controlling the other person. It's the fact they don't want you to see them naked that makes it so exciting to you.
I love looking at naked women. I'm not interested in doing it against their will. Simple!
Hope that helps!!
"It's because the world is run by men. A superwoman beating males to a pulp is just something you only see on a screen whereas you don't have to look far to see men beating women in real life."
you forgot to say "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" or some other such feminist propaganda nonsense.
"Hope that helps!!"
not in the least.
(and is ANYONE surprised that the BIRTH RATE IS DROPPING? For when men can't be men, women can't be women, and normal male/female relationship behavior is DISCOURAGED at every turn, people withdraw into their cell phones and online life and don't marry nor have kids because they have been CONDITIONED - So as far as _I_ am concerned, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS can KISS MY HAIRY NAKED ASS)
and is ANYONE surprised that the BIRTH RATE IS DROPPING?
No, no-one is surprised. It turns out that people, especially women who tend to have to do the whole giving-birth / dying in childbirth thing, don't actually enjoy having dozens of children in the hope that two or three will survive, still less having to deal with eighteen teenagers in the house when they don't all die in childhood. And no, this is not to do with phones, it's to do with not having a shit life.
For when men can't be men, women can't be women, and normal male/female relationship behavior is DISCOURAGED at every turn
Because only male/female relationships are 'normal' right? Who told you that? God? Mike Pence? Certainly not anyone who understands genetics & natural selection. Try to think (hard for you, I know) why is it genetically useful that not everyone breeds? Hint: why is it useful that women don't all die after the menopause or that left-handed people exist (left-handed people is not quite the same reason, but it's related)?
And by 'discouraged' I presume you mean 'no-one wants to have sex with poor oppressed bombastic bob ... because he's a jerk and writes in capitals': the rest of us, those of us who aren't jerks, are doing just fine, thanks: I'm doing fine with my 'normal' male/female relationship behaviour, and the friends whose wedding I went to the other week are doing fine with their 'normal' female/female relationship behaviour.
Gay uncles and aunts may also step in to defend the family or take over when a parent is killed, thus raising the survival rate for children while ensuring that their family genes get passed on. And it has been credibly argued that humans started to progress rapidly once grandparents were around, because of cultural transmission. (Works both ways; it turns out I understand kidspeak better than the parents.)
People like BB who believe in nookular families (more than his President does) show a lack of understanding of how biology works. If a behaviour pattern confers evolutionary advantage, that's what persists.
>> Because only male/female relationships are 'normal' right? Who told you that?
While I don't care, to answer your question, "every living thing on the face of the earth pairs male with female". I don't know of any socialized animal that gets it on with same-sexes other than humans. But to repeat, if you choose to be gay, go ahead - I really don't care.
It's when I'm expected to take part in gay pride demonstrations, or tolerate some guy flirting with me; that's where I draw the line. No, I'm not going to buy your rainbow shirt or shake your hand. I don't know you, and you don't know me. No I won't tolerate some fat guy trying to chat me up in a normal bar. If a woman can reject men, then surely I am allowed to without being called anti-gay.
"Liking to look at naked women is not the same as liking to look at naked women who don't want to be seen naked. In the second case, the one you're on about, it's weird because it's not about seeing boobs, it's aboout controlling the other person. It's the fact they don't want you to see them naked that makes it so exciting to you."
Except you are not looking at a picture of a naked woman who did not want to be seen naked. You are looking at a picture of her face, and a non-existent image representative of a female body. Not *her* body, but a generic body. The "she" is not being seen naked.
That said, I'm not condoning the software (or even the practice of superimposing anyone on another object for the objective of personal gratification), because :creepy. But let's call it out for what it is, than what it isn't.
>> It's because the world is run by men. A superwoman beating males to a pulp is just something you only see on a screen whereas you don't have to look far to see men beating women in real life.
Yes, good job feminists. Whereas men were once brought up to defend and protect women, now apparently that's a major no-no. What's fascinating is to see how the two groups behave when someone is being beaten in front of them (and this has been tested). A man beating a woman in front of other men will be stopped and separated from harming her. A woman beating a man will be cheered on by other woman and the man will be laughed at by the women.
The problem is exacerbated by feminist agendas the world over.
And there writes someone who really does not understand basic biology.
Fifteen minutes of teenage investigation coupled with an IQ above room temperature should make anyone realise that the male and female reproductive apparatus are produced from the same basic structures, after which you can get over it, grow up and have sexual relations and possibly children. Women's ovaries don't descend so their flappy bits are empty, just like those of prepubescent boys. But they do have a structural analogue of the penis and its shape varies quite a bit from woman to woman. In a sense, we've got the same bits but the sizes and exact location vary. Rather than fishes and bicycles, it's more like a 911 versus a Mustang.
in the article and the comments, in general.
Yeah we all know that 90's TV preachers had LOTS of moral outrage, until a couple of them got caught with their pants down...
just sayin' that being all 'high and mighty' and morally outraged and using terms like 'misogynistic' to describe something that simply fakes naked pictures of people seems to be a little bit TOO much like (to quote Shakespeare) "the lady doth protest too much methinks".
Have to give you that one.
Though it's not exactly moral outage, it's a weird stew of modern confusion. See, you're a loser if you like naked pictures ... oops, wait, no, you're a loser if you like *fake* naked pictures ... because you should be using and not committing to lots of *real* women, because that's more admirable, or something ...
Yes, the genie is out of the bottle, but IMHO the effects will very rapidly be diluted. This is not going to have a long life either as scandal, internet phenomenon or perhaps even talking point.
1. If a Deepfake can be deployed to make it look convincingly as if President Muffley said "I am covfefe", it rapidly becomes easier for Muffley to say "Fake news, that was ginned up by my enemies". Video "evidence" becomes less and less reliable and persuasive.
2. If a nude of Muffley is doing the rounds, exposing pendulous man-tits, flabby paunch and micro-wiener, it is much easier for him to say "Fake nude, ginned up by ..." etc. (Plus: "The note written by my doctor, at my dictation, says I am the strongest man in the world with the yoogest pecker".)
3. No woman (or man) need any longer be afraid of revenge porn or any other kind of malign exposure, because it is now all deniable.
4. Politicians will have to start re-engaging directly with physical audiences, going on the stump as they used to a century ago. It's the only way they'll inoculate their images from fakery. They will have to meet real people. They will have to think on their feet. Their speech and body language can be judged in the flesh. They will have to show knowledge, intelligence, articulation and stamina.
The days of stupid, ignorant liars bloviating from an autocue to selected friendly audiences will be over. They will no longer be able to hide behind carefully airbrushed seconds of screen propaganda.
5. Deep Fakery in the long run is inevitable, impossible to prevent, and will reach a crest of toxicity some time soon—but after that, once it we realise that imagery and footage alone simply isn't to be trusted, it will have peaked in its "usefulness" and we will find these silver linings, per 3 and 4 above.
What looks like an appalling disease right now, will, once we are immunised, turn out to have made us much stronger and better.
No woman (or man) need any longer be afraid of revenge porn or any other kind of malign exposure, because it is now all deniable
Deniable, yes; but unfortunately whether denial is effective depends on the audience. There are audiences which 1) will accept photographic evidence as reliable and 2) ignore reasonable deniability, partly due to a failure to think critically (it's not a given, you know) and partly due to confirmation bias.
Hell, people who pay attention to these things know that photographic evidence is already highly suspect; that doesn't stop large portions of the population from believing it.
The days of stupid, ignorant liars bloviating from an autocue to selected friendly audiences will be over
I think that's overly optimistic. Demagogues have power because there are plenty of people who don't want the cognitive load of thinking about things. They'd much rather enjoy seccondhand outrage, packaged arguments, and membership in a group that basks in its own supposed oppression.
Deep Fakery in the long run is inevitable, impossible to prevent
This is an interesting intellectual exercise from a security point of view. What protocols could a victim use to disprove a deepfake? Tattoos, piercings, or other body modifications that aren't visible in public photographs could be used as evidence - but if that evidence is public, they lose their utility (essentially they're symmetric secrets), and they're hard to revoke and change. A Trusted Third Party protocol could avoid that issue, but establishing a TTP in this environment looks implausible. An exercise for the reader: can you adapt a zero-knowledge proof protocol to this situation? (I had some thoughts along these lines but I don't think they're feasible in practice. Not that anyone would go to the trouble anyway.)
Not one person so far has point out thats a LOT of money just made in a quick amount of time.
The one thing I knows if there's a boatload of cash to be made, copies and even better versions will be fast coming.
Agree with the point that once this is common and you can do it on your phone, nudes will quickly lose their power and become as mundane as the bunny ears that even politicians use these days.
“The world is not yet ready for DeepNude,” the team, based in Estonia, said on Thursday.
I think the problem was more that the world is *TOO* ready for it.
But why bother with these hacked images when there's sites like Danbooru and Gelbooru filled with enough of a selection of independent artwork to get your jollies... Or so I've heard that is.
Woman accused by HR of bringing company into disrepute by allowing nudes of them to circulate now have a perfect defence.
Around 1900, as reported by Mark Twain, the forgery industry in Bombay was so sophisticated that basically many court cases became impossible. Some forgery firms had been in business so long they had piles of copies of government forms, inks of the appropriate years, old government stamps and so on. And if that didn't work there were professional "witnesses".
A Bombay businessman tried it on us in the 1980s. Unfortunately for him, his doctored photocopies were immediately detected by the judge and his counsel walked out.
Expect a lot of this in future. Apart from anything else, fewer unfortunate teenage girls should be locked up for "sexting" in the US, if they manage to find a judge who has got beyond manual typewriters in some of the more backward states.
IIRC in France it is illegal to associate a photo of someone alongside a product (endorsing that product by implication) without consent.
Think of it from that point of view and it makes sense that the subject has not consented to being associated with faked body elements and therefore has rights in law to protect themselves.
I'm always quite curious as to how people think banning these would work.
If an image created from another one* is no longer allowed to be published, then where does photo editing stand? I'm not talking about a headswap, just basic stuff. If it's allowed to be edited, then to what extent?
How about photos that are genuine, but deliberately misleading? BoJo made the news for having a drag out fight with his girlfriend. Then his publicity team pushed a picture round of them looking all cute together. Picture was clearly old (BoJo had longer hair etc), but BoJo and team insist it's not. Is that a faked image? Genuine picture, but disguising when it was taken?
Don't get me wrong, I'd be quite happy to require photos to be genuine. But it would put the paps out of work, and quite of lot of papers sold/eyeballs gained are from pictures obtained by those scummy snappers. While there are proper photojournalists, I'm pretty sure they aren't using a selfie stick to try and take pictures of a star's knickers as they step out of the car.
While there aren't always specific revenge porn laws, the impression given that there are no laws that can be used is false. Generally they start by obtaining the copyright, typically from the ex**. Then, as the copyright holder, you can demand sites take it down. If they don't, the financial penalties rack up pretty quick. The issue now is who owns the deepfake? The person who made the porn image, the person in the added image, or the person who combined the two.
Bear in mind the UK banned revenge porn, unless it was for commercial purposes. Yeah. You read that right. Because otherwise it would have covered the press publishing nudes, and MPs are terrified of legislating the press.
* be it faked, edited etc
** not as hard as it sounds, since most of these idiots thought it was consequnence free for them. Legal letters show up, fold like an origami frog.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019