A writer who makes a book that is word-for-word the same as another book is infringement.
Making a pixel-perfect copy of a photo, from scratch, is an infringement.
Copying a song, perfectly, is infringement.
Whether something is a 'lie or the truth' - or 'which one is more convincing' doesn't really matter.
With 'deepfakes' we're going to have to get serious because people will literally be putting words in other people's mouths, creating fake representations of other people, it's going to cause problems. This issue may not actually fall under copyright.
I'm specifically addressing the notion that the government would carve out a free-speech exception for "deepfakes", like "deep fakes of Politicians / Celebrities are illegal." Which would be clearly unconstitutional, because you are forbidding creation of a creative, expressive work.
Whether the works that you are free to create, regardless of format (photoshopped image, deepfaked video), violate some other law - libel/slander - is separate as well. Yes, they certainly could, just like a photoshopped image today could be libelous.
Not if it’s libel. And a convincing deepfake that harms someone’s reputation could easily be interpreted as an act of defamation by the creator, which would mean it’s not protected speech.
There's no reason to think libel laws wouldn't apply to deep fakes the same way the apply to a photoshopped image, or a textual lie.
We (ok, mostly those in power or who want to be) constantly feed each other the most manipulative, self interested lies for personal/organizational benefit, 24/7/365.
Life has always revolved around either being manipulated, or knowing that that's the point of what you hear, and putting in the effort to find out more before forming an opinion.
Hence investigative journalists, etc etc.
> God help us all...
Umm, we've all been deceived about almost everything since forever. There's no sudden worsening here, just a newer level of verification required.
One set of shared delusions is not the same as an anarchy of delusions.
Wars are started based on disinformation, black propaganda and/or false flags anyway.[0] Nobody (at least who wasn't already spoiling for a fight) is going to start a war just because of a deepfake posted to Youtube.
> What will the third world victims of some hate story stirred up by AI doctored footage care about first amendment protections in America ?
This video was taken down, rightly or wrongly, due to American law. It's quite likely deepfakes are actually 'more legal' in some countries outside the US, due to differences in legislation.
For example, depending on political/sexual content, an Iranian or North Korean video host may be less interested in taking down a deepfake of Jay-Z than Youtube.
> Deepfakes are a clear and present existential danger to ourselves and others
The real danger with deepfakes (and other technology that the rich and powerful don't like, such as encryption) is overreaction and people tripping over themselves to call for even more limits on their own free expression.
> God help us all once we can't even believe what we see anymore.
And God help us all when we have no way to speak out any more. As shown in the link below, we never could believe what we see.
[0] https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ever-growing-list-of-admit...
You mean like scenes shot with actors to imply certain events happening? ex. scenes protests in some city when it's actually just a bunch of actors making it look like a protest is happening?
The harder lesson is learning to catch yourself and see past it before getting manipulated.
The hardest lesson is not knee jerking and giving those who want to control you the tools to limit everyone's speech to just approved material. (China, Iran, Vietnam, North Korea, these ring a bell? VERY slippery slope.)
And once elected, they'll be stuck doing it, or the news networks will decide that it did happen, and no one will be able to figure out that it actually was not. At that point, is there any difference?
Ugh, that is the type of free-speech infringement that people should be worried about, not all this stuff about how YouTube taking down videos is government censorship.
A really good deepfake is still fiction. Really good writing is fiction. Really poorly-written fake "news" blogs "reporting" lies as truth is fiction. These are all allowed to exist (in the USA) because of the 1st Amendment. It is the price that we pay for living in a free society, that the government cannot tell you "your fiction is not allowed."
Textual accounts of real events, and lies about real events, have existed for ages. Sometimes the lies are more convincing than the truth. Audio recording and doctored audio has existed for ages. Photography and doctored photos have existed for ages. Video recording and doctored video has existed for ages. We'll survive another flavor of doctoring just fine without the government's help.