Trademarks and copyright are NOT the same thing. That trademark would only give them rights to the branding PINK in the context of insulation. Copyright is more expansive - and I think you should be more worried about copyright than trademark.
[1] https://www.owenscorning.com/copyright [2] https://youtu.be/C5uM-QwKgW4
That doesn't really matter. Anyone who held any piece of the rights could submit to YouTube for a take down, and YouTube will do it. They don't go very far in trying to figure out the legitimacy of a claim, and any rights holder will be good enough for them.
, but often some large corporations
if the person is still alive then people might believe it's an original and the impersonated can legitimately claim that the fake is profiting from that mistaken identity.
A deepfake Elvis video of a song that he didn't write would be subject to copyright by the original author of the song and to trademark by the owner of Elvis's likeness. However, it seems plausible that such a trademark claim might fail because (among other things) it should be apparent to a viewer that it isn't actually Elvis.
The courts or the legislature are going to have to address how your rights to your own image being synthesized like this, but again, I have no problem with someone retaining the same sorts of original ownership rights when it comes to derivative works that use data collected from them, beyond just who owns the copyright to the works in the dataset. (voice, video, images, etc.)
Imagine if that were true - a human artist couldn't create anything, because everything in the world around them is their training set!
I think it has to be a likeness test - if an average person would think its a real Jay-Z music video, then it's a derivative work. Don't muddy it with the implementation details of how it was made.
I suspect that would be an absolutely terrible standard in practice. I realize you specifically have deepfakes in mind, but consider that in more general terms those are outputs from a machine learning algorithm. Such outputs will inevitably fall on a continuum regarding the degree to which they resemble a distinctive art style, voice, personality, or other metric.
It seems unreasonable to me that it should be illegal to use arbitrary input data to train a NLP translation model or an image classifier. Farther along the spectrum of outputs, style transfer GANs don't seem like they should be a violation of the law. Should TWDNE really be against the law to host? (https://www.thiswaifudoesnotexist.net/) According to your proposed standard, it would be.
If this was a parody, that could probably be argued very differently. Not sure where this particular case falls legally.
I don't agree with if you don't own the copyright you are infringing by publishing something the model produces. It should be tied back to the likeness of the original source.
The argument would be - if I never used any copyrighted JayZ sources (talking in a public setting, not giving a speech) and produced a deepfake, provably so, that would prevent me from being sued by JayZ & co?
Ideally no, because I'm still using his likeness to promote something.
Going up against a living performer whose main asset is their vocal style makes a weaker case. Living people have stronger publicity rights than the estates of dead ones. This could result in a decision which expands the scope of copyright. One of those weird copyright decisions, like the one where Owens-Corning trademarked PINK, as a color, for insulation. Coloring insulation was so unusual that it was held to be a valid trademark. Now there are other copyright on colors. Bad cases make bad law.
This thing has been botched so badly that one wonders if it's a fake case from the music industry to get a losing decision.