Not The Onion

11845 readers

491 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

248

White House calls for legislation to stop Taylor Swift AI fakes (www.theverge.com)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

151 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://mbin.grits.dev/m/mews/t/22301

White House calls for legislation to stop Taylor Swift AI fakes

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I’m wondering if the degree of believability of the image has, or should have any bearing on the answer here. Like, if a third party who was unaware of the image’s provenance came across it, might they be likely to believe the image is authentic or authorized?

For another angle, we allow protections on the usage of fictional characters/their images. Is it so wild to think that a real person might be worthy of the same protections?

Ultimately, people are going to be privately freaky how they’re gonna be privately freaky. It mostly only ever becomes a problem when it stops being private. I shouldn’t have to see that a bunch of strangers made porn to look like me, and neither should Taylor. And mine are unlikely to make it into tabloids.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

From https://www.owe.com/resources/legalities/7-issues-regarding-use-someones-likeness/

A. The short answer is no. Individuals do not have an absolute ownership right in their names or likenesses. But the law does give individuals certain rights of “privacy” and “publicity” which provide limited rights to control how your name, likeness, or other identifying information is used under certain circumstances.

From that page, it actually looks like there is a very specific criteria for this - and Taylor Swift HERSELF is protected because she is a celebrity.

However, there are still a lot of gotchas. So instead of making the product/art itself illegal, using it as harassment should be what's illegal. Attaching someone's name to it in an attempt to defame them is what's already illegal here.