[dak1]

Is there a clear bright-line between a cartoon or South Park-style animation, a hand-drawn photorealistic graphic, and a ML-generated one that should be legislated differently than existing laws against commercial usage of somebody's likeness vs fair use?

If so, what is that bright-line, and what unforeseen consequences might legislating it have?

I recognize the limits on regulating free speech are weaker in the UK where this story originated as opposed to in the US.

[misja111]

There doesn't have to be a clear bright line, even when the law seems clear the reality is many times fuzzy. This is why we have judges, to make a ruling in the spirit of the law. In this case, if the likeliness is close enough then it's forbidden.

[nvr219]

"I know it when I see it!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio

[riffraff]

I would guess something akin to existing copyright/branding rules?

Something like "can an unknowing person genuinely confuse the copy with the original, and did the person who produce the copy did it to exploit such confusion".

[bawolff]

Is that the existing copyright rule? It might be the existing trademark rule, but i don't think that is the existing copyright rule.

Arguably from a copyright perspective deepfakes might be derrivitive works of the used source material, but that is generally owned by the photographer not the model.

Probably personality rights would be the way to go here, rather than trademark or copyright.

IANAL.

[derefr]

Likeness rights are a thing, and that thing works a lot like trademarks/“trade dress.”

If a picture could be confused for being something created using a given model as a reference input, then the model has a right to claim a violation of their likeness rights. Just like a can of soda that tries to confuse you into thinking it’s Coca-Cola, without ever saying “Coca-Cola” anywhere on it, is violating Coca-Cola Corporation’s trade-dress rights.

[falcolas]

Given that colored pencil drawings can be photorealistic, I'm not sure a "bright line" exists. Deepfakes just make it easier to do something that has likely been done since the creation of drawing tools.

[leetcrew]

in general, you are risking a lawsuit if you use anyone's likeness without their permission, especially if you depict them in a negative light and/or for commercial purposes. parodies are protected (if they are sufficiently obvious like south park), and it is usually hard for a public figure to win such a suit unless they can show that you invaded their privacy.

free speech enjoys strong protections in the US, but so does copyright. I'm not sure why the article acts like all the legal processes available are onerous and/or inapplicable. it's not complicated to file a DMCA takedown, and it would almost certainly result in these videos being taken down with minimal review.

of course, you would likely see the same thing as with other copyrighted material. you can push it off the main sites where it gets the most views, but if people really want to upload and view something, they will find a place to host it. you can either accept this, or you can push for more draconian laws that don't fix the problem, but make everyone's lives a little more difficult.

[happytoexplain]

>Is there a clear bright-line

Not one that represents a universal truth - there never is. We decide on lines that are arbitrary to reality but interesting to humans because we have no other choice. Note that this is different from subjective vs objective, which is a second axis, but is often used as a synonym for the first when creating a false dilemma. Objectivity is more relevant when deciding on the written language of the implementation, which is different from the interesting moral problem.