Deepfakes porn has serious consequences

[Boathouse]

Wrong this isn't covered by any of that, this isn't a parody of anybodies body of work, this is a flat our forgery of someone's identity. Why hire a actor anymore for anything if you can simply steal their image.

That's not true at all. The photo used -is- someones work. Your likeness or not. Someone took the picture, filmed the video, etc. It doesn't matter if it's you in that video/picture or not. You don't own that. Plenty of court cases have been won in defense of the photographer in this exact scenario.

[Super Kami Dende]

Yes fake photos have always existed, so have doubles and people that looked like other people, and event hen those have never been purported to be who they were doubling for.

This actually changes a lot, this is actually taking someone's photo and turning it into a realistic 3d photoshopped image, that makes no such claims that this is not the person they are naming, because they can't because it is.

This is them in almost every real way, and exposing them as such as well, not in a parody or a critique, but as a way of stealing their identity and manufacturing material of their persons

So you can't give a valid cut-off point for punishment.

Like I said, Argument, flat on face.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Looking forward to what you do

I am not going to do anything with it, but it's up there, so Now anyone could right, for anything, he has explicitly given permission, although Personally I am not going to do anything with it, because that would make me a hypocrite of what I am saying, even though I have his permission. Which realistically I have no way of verifying.

[Vankrys]

Yet Fake Photos of Celebs have existed for decades. This doesn't change it and at which point would you say Punishments need to start? Simply photoshopping someones face onto someone else's body? Your argument falls flat on it's face as soon as you require a cut off point.

"OMG HIS IMAGE HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON A SITUATION HE WAS NOT IN! STRAIGHT TO JAIL!!!"

Not worry about the legal aspect for now.

But if it become that easy to prank your friend, colleague, neighbour or even a total stranger, just for the fun of messing with their life, the consequences could be dire for some regular folks, non public figure.

[Super Kami Dende]

Not worry about the legal aspect for now.

But if it become that easy to prank your friend, colleague, neighbour or even a total stranger, just for the fun of messing with their life, the consequences could be dire for some regular folks, non public figure.

And that is different to idiots being tricked by Photoshop for how many years now?

[Doctor Amadeus]

So you can't give a valid cut-off point for punishment.

Like I said, Argument, flat on face.

It all has to do with exactly how an image is being used or placed, as I said a parody or an extreme parody or exaggeration isn't the same thing as actually trying to profit of someone else's image against their permission.

That extends to look alikes and what not that isn't the same thing. That is typically one person or a handful, very unlikely they are going to engage in actual identity theft.


This on the other hand is different, so you start with identity theft, being the first charge, that is a already a crime that carries serious punishment. Then you open whoever to whatever criminal and civil liabilities that would come with anybody mistaking this said production for the real person from whose identity they stolen.

[Vankrys]

And that is different to idiots being tricked by Photoshop for how many years now?

better technology, actual movie clip, not just picture and that fact that we live in the information age, we consume media at our fingertip.

I am not convinced yesterday standard continues to apply today.

[Deleted]

Yes fake photos have always existed, so have doubles and people that looked like other people, and event hen those have never been purported to be who they were doubling for.

This actually changes a lot, this is actually taking someone's photo and turning it into a realistic 3d photoshopped image, that makes no such claims that this is not the person they are naming, because they can't because it is.

This is them in almost every real way, and exposing them as such as well, not in a parody or a critique, but as a way of stealing their identity and manufacturing material of their persons

there are plenty of countermeasures.

i'm sure some sort of watermark can be developed to prove authenticity. all important stuff can be sourced only on reliable sources: e.g. a speech from the president will always be available on some gov site. security cameras tend to be closed loop systems so not everybody can just access the footage to edit it to cover up/frame people for crimes. programs can be forced by law to not allow editing of certain images (try opening a picture of adollar bill in photoshop). etc.

[Boathouse]

It all has to do with exactly how an image is being used or placed, as I said a parody or an extreme parody or exaggeration isn't the same thing as actually trying to profit of someone else's image against their permission.

That extends to look alikes and what not that isn't the same thing. That is typically one person or a handful, very unlikely they are going to engage in actual identity theft.


This on the other hand is different, so you start with identity theft, being the first charge, that is a already a crime that carries serious punishment. Then you open whoever to whatever criminal and civil liabilities that would come with anybody mistaking this said production for the real person from whose identity they stolen.

Which again, is only a problem if people start trying to pass these off as real, which is the exact same thing with the photoshopped images we've been seeing since it became a thing. That's an entirely different can of worms. So long as people aren't posting -OMG LOOK AT MILEY CYRUS BLOWING BILL CLINTON AT A PARTY, SEEN IT MYSELF!- there's nothing wrong with it.

It's an absolute non issue.

[Doctor Amadeus]

there are plenty of countermeasures.

i'm sure some sort of watermark can be developed to prove authenticity. all important stuff can be sourced only on reliable sources: e.g. a speech from the president will always be available on some gov site. security cameras tend to be closed loop systems so not everybody can just access the footage to edit it to cover up/frame people for crimes. programs can be forced by law to not allow editing of certain images (try opening a picture of adollar bill in photoshop). etc.

Yeah, I am sure in this day and age, if someone has a key another can design a better lock, I think attitudes are going to be important because people are bigger than the law, CP is largely curbed too, in large part because people are already self educated as to why that sort of thing is not OK, this is going to have to go through something like that in addition to the law.

Because looking at what I just seen, I don't have to care, it isn't me, My image isn't floating around out there, and I am certainly not anybody famous, but what is, what if someone could, how far can this go and who and how many could this kind of technology touch who, haven't given permission. I am not talking about prudes and seeing an image here or there or whatever.

But like with this Catfishing thing, people taking others identities and duping or causing countless people untold harm, I can't imagine how much damage something like this could do as it gets better.

- - - Updated - - -

better technology, actual movie clip, not just picture and that fact that we live in the information age, we consume media at our fingertip.

I am not convinced yesterday standard continues to apply today.

I agree, but it's a way to get the ball rolling and start clamping down on this as people become more intelligent about this technology and exposure to the kinds of harm it can cause.

- - - Updated - - -

Which again, is only a problem if people start trying to pass these off as real, which is the exact same thing with the photoshopped images we've been seeing since it became a thing. That's an entirely different can of worms. So long as people aren't posting -OMG LOOK AT MILEY CYRUS BLOWING BILL CLINTON AT A PARTY, SEEN IT MYSELF!- there's nothing wrong with it.

It's an absolute non issue.

Yeah, but I think you are glossing over a great deal of many avenues that this goes down, I am not talking about just porn. That could be the lease of your concerns, as to what people proport, who knows, the examples I seen every single one of the faces used were celebrities who unlike me and you have no expectation of privacy.


However, that doesn't change the fact that by the very nature of what they do, the only sort of defense one needs is by commentary or parody. What I seen was neither of those things, and it wasn't anything towards a body of work.

One of the persons was Ivanka Trump, and despite me not liking her, I am pretty damn sure she has never consented to any body of work or parody where her image could literally be used and titled Ivanka Trump _______.


"Oh well we all know it's not real" Oh contraire, I might be able to determine that, I am sure if I worked with the technology even more easy, but this is the first I have ever seen something like this, and that was a pretty damn good likeness.


And as the technology betters, if someone released this and said Oh well they had a sex tape of Ivanka, I will be honest I couldn't tell. Not that I would go looking in the first place, but others might, and that is just porn or a sex tape which is harmless.

What is to prevent someone from going further, maybe trying to implicate her another way.

And I don't care about Ivanka Trump at all, but the fact is this is a bridge too far, and the implications of it I am not ok with well, it's no big deal lets just leave it up to whoever to set the record straight.


No, this should be illegal out right, period, that is unless it is with the express permission of who's image it belongs.

[Deleted]

Yeah, I am sure in this day and age, if someone has a key another can design a better lock, I think attitudes are going to be important because people are bigger than the law, CP is largely curbed too, in large part because people are already self educated as to why that sort of thing is not OK, this is going to have to go through something like that in addition to the law.

Because looking at what I just seen, I don't have to care, it isn't me, My image isn't floating around out there, and I am certainly not anybody famous, but what is, what if someone could, how far can this go and who and how many could this kind of technology touch who, haven't given permission. I am not talking about prudes and seeing an image here or there or whatever.

But like with this Catfishing thing, people taking others identities and duping or causing countless people untold harm, I can't imagine how much damage something like this could do as it gets better.

- - - Updated - - -



I agree, but it's a way to get the ball rolling and start clamping down on this as people become more intelligent about this technology and exposure to the kinds of harm it can cause.

meh won't be all that bad. most people dont know how to photoshop, let alone convincingly. this will be the same. don't forget about the audio part, anything that involves voice will be a lot harder to do.

anyone with malicious intentions or criminals have enough tools already.

- - - Updated - - -

No, this should be illegal out right, period, that is unless it is with the express permission of who's image it belongs.

no reason to ban the tool straight up. part of my countries copyright law is that everybody can take my picture, but if i don't agree with publication of that picture i can press charges as long as I have a reasonable concern that outweighs freedom of press/speech, such as privacy, defamation, them making money of my picture, etc.

[Doctor Amadeus]

meh won't be all that bad. most people dont know how to photoshop, let alone convincingly. this will be the same. don't forget about the audio part, anything that involves voice will be a lot harder to do.

anyone with malicious intentions or criminals have enough tools already.

Eventually it will be dummied up enough to where anybody can do it, and they will, as of right now you are probably correct, and I am not too worried something like this today will lead to much beyond maybe embarrassment, and violation of some peoples images, which is enough IMO.

But it's going to be an issue.


As for those that know better and have the kinds of talent to do things more advanced, those are the ones I am least concerned about, at least without enough motivation $$$$$$, but as this is dumbed down, people less talented with too much time on their hands not so much.

- - - Updated - - -

no reason to ban the tool straight up. part of my countries copyright law is that everybody can take my picture, but if i don't agree with publication of that picture i can press charges as long as I have a reasonable concern that outweighs freedom of press/speech, such as privacy, defamation, them making money of my picture, etc.

Ban the technology? I didn't say that, I mean CP is illegal, we don't make video illegal. What I am saying that there need to be laws to protect people's images from misuse.

As for your image I already said, I have no intentions of using it, but you already gave explicit permission to use it provided you aren't lying, which is also very common online and something I would have to prove a verified beyond just taking "your word for it" pertaining to any damages LOL

The point is though, while I might not regardless for many reason do anything with your image, the truth of the matter is someone else might or could, and the good thing for you is that nobody probably really cares who you are. I mean if your image shows up in some random althorism for a job background check, and one of the hits comes up is your image in relation to _________.

That could be a problem

[lockblock]

Fascinating.
Still idiotic.

I thought that was meant to be taken literally. IE an adult drawing a real child nude and not those weirdos drawing naked underage cartoon girls or other not real persons.

[Deleted]

As for your image I already said, I have no intentions of using it, but you already gave explicit permission to use it provided you aren't lying, which is also very common online and something I would have to prove a verified beyond just taking "your word for it" pertaining to any damages LOL

not sure what you mean with giving you explicit permission. if you mean pictures on social media and the like, that permission is for those companies and at least where i live ins't a blanket permission, nor does it remove my rights to my likeness even if i don't own the copyright of the image. damages also don't have to be proven, they only have to meet the "reasonable person" standard which is usually much lower.

The point is though, while I might not regardless for many reason do anything with your image, the truth of the matter is someone else might or could, and the good thing for you is that nobody probably really cares who you are. I mean if your image shows up in some random althorism for a job background check, and one of the hits comes up is your image in relation to _________.

That could be a problem

then you fill out the google form to remove that link from their search engine.

[Reinhard von Lohengramm]

Hand-drawn child porn is "fake", but gets you prison time too.

Idiotic Laws should be stifled whenever mentioned not used as an argument for more idiotic laws.

[Doctor Amadeus]

not sure what you mean with giving you explicit permission. if you mean pictures on social media and the like, that permission is for those companies and at least where i live ins't a blanket permission, nor does it remove my rights to my likeness even if i don't own the copyright of the image. damages also don't have to be proven, they only have to meet the "reasonable person" standard which is usually much lower.

Most places you upload your photo online provide no guarantees and are completely not on the hook for damages, per any agreement you agree to when using a site. I also think you will find regardless to where you live, the remedies for such damages to your image or anything else are limited.

Then you fill out the google form to remove that link from their search engine.

Right now you only have a few hundred more database and background search sites to contact to do the same thing, and that is is they will do it. That's just for 1 photo. That's also by some grand miracle that you are even informed of the reason you weren't hired, because someone used your identity to sign up up for some kind of site that gives you an online footprint a business or client just rather steer clear from.

The point is there are a lot of complications that have a real impact too serious to simply handwave.

[Mormolyce]

The way of the future. Every movie will give you the option to put your face on the main protagonist.

You'd have to submit quite a lot of video to train the algorithm, but it's possible.

[AeneasBK]

What are you going on about? Sophie is hot as hell.

Obviously tastes differ but Sophie Turner never struck me as a particularly "good looking" girl, in the scale of "pretty actresses and models"...

[Deleted]

I thought that was meant to be taken literally. IE an adult drawing a real child nude and not those weirdos drawing naked underage cartoon girls or other not real persons.

It's cartoons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_...picting_minors

[StayTuned]

Yea I don't think that Porn is the real issue here. I'm not sure how the thread developed in the last 8 pages, but if this "new" technology is used to create fake videos of people, that might incriminate them.

Politician's heads mounted on fake propaganda movies. Fake surveillance videos of people being assassinated.

Some celebs face on a naked body is my least concern.