Facebook disqualifies leaders of Deepfake Detection Challenge for rule breach

Re:Facebook disqualifies leaders of Deepfake Detection Chall... by TheAdamAndChe on Monday June 15, 2020 @06:49AM (#23525969)

The article states the videos used a Creative Commons license that allowed for commercial use. It is an extremely liberal license that does not state "free for commercial use except for when used with facial recognition."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook disqualifies leaders of Deepfake Detection Chall... by KingOfCoders on Monday June 15, 2020 @08:00AM (#23526402)

For people in a video you need a model release from them. This is also a mistake many people make, they use Creative Commons licenses and think they are safe. A picture or a video needs model releases for the people in the picture (several exemptions apply).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook disqualifies leaders of Deepfake Detection Chall... by gman83 on Monday June 15, 2020 @08:21AM (#23526542)

If that is true then basically all the photographs in Wikipedia are illegal since the only check they do is for copyright not for model release. Pretty sure that's not a legal requirement.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook disqualifies leaders of Deepfake Detection Chall... by KingOfCoders on Monday June 15, 2020 @09:34AM (#23527122)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release

and

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_...

See the other comment for some of the exceptions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook disqualifies leaders of Deepfake Detection Chall... by danbruc on Monday June 15, 2020 @09:14AM (#23526956)

Of which photos are you thinking? It most certainly varies from country to country but public figures or random people captured when taking a picture of a landscape or a building are at least in some countries not subject to such rules.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook disqualifies leaders of Deepfake Detection Chall... by quietbritishjim on Monday June 15, 2020 @07:09AM (#23526090)

But that Creative Commons licence was issued from the copyright holder of those videos, not the people in them. The people in those videos may not even have agreed to appear in the video if they were in a public place (the relevant legal term, at least here in the UK, is "reasonable expectation of privacy"). So if Kaggle requires people in the videos to consent taking part then that consent cannot be inferred from that licence.

What's more, if that consent is not legally required (there's a heavy "if" in this sentence, IANAL so I do pretend to know whether it's required e.g. under GDPR, but let's assume for a moment that it's not) then Kaggle are still perfectly at rights to ask for that permission to qualify for their competition. After all, it's their competition, and it's totally reasonable for them to set an ethical criteria that's even higher than legally required.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook disqualifies leaders of Deepfake Detection Chall... by TheAdamAndChe on Monday June 15, 2020 @07:19AM (#23526153)

You're right, I missed that part of their rules. Looks like they did probably break them.

"A. If any part of the submission documentation depicts, identifies, or includes any person that is not an individual participant or Team member, you must have all permissions and rights from the individual depicted, identified, or included and you agree to provide Competition Sponsor and PAI with written confirmation of those permissions and rights upon request."

[ Parent | on HN ]