[samstave]

It matters because she is famous?

If this was just some random person, this would be a blip on nightly news - similar to the revengeporn website stuff.

It must be really interesting though, to be the person in all of Human History who is at the creation of a Humanity's awareness that controlling AI versions of our likeness is going to be an impactful and meaningful area in legal precedent for here to evermore.

Swift, IMO, should feel a certain sense of weird-luckiness? to literally the Human where we begin the discussion of protecting ourselves from AI fakes....

My question is, then, if Swift can be entirely in control of how her likeness is used in any context, then what about any random person's likeness being scanned, documented and analyzed by millions of camera surveillance feeds every day?

Its a weird tangent, but if Swift creates the foundation for (what would this be, case law? Precedent? Dont know what legal terms define this) - what impact could it have for people defending the even capture of their likeness by systems that use that likeness to develop a catalog of your biometric-behavors to track you, recreate you, catalog you, define you, and then have business systems use that data to make decisions upon or against you?

If I own all aspects of my biologics, then do I have ay agency over how data captured, and AI-ified, amy be used?

[techdragon]

She is rich, and famous, and can both afford to fight legally, and sway public opinion to her side ( which is is the ethically sound side, it’s hard to argue it’s totally fine for anyone to make fake porn and share it of you without permission… doubly so given we allow people to exercise likeness rights )

So she has the social and economic power to stand up for her rights, and enforce her existing likeness rights in the face of some widespread AI imagery that is violating those rights…

I’m not expecting precedent, just another sad example of how the rich and powerful have rights the rest of us don’t, because you have to assert those rights which requires lawyers which requires money and so… the status quo continues as it exists today… “nothing to see here, move along”… sadly.

[samstave]

Full agreement.

That's why I think this is really important for everyone - and not just about fake sex tapes - but in how much we control our presence in the world, specifically at the intersection of our Digital existence and our Biological existence.

And this is imperative to get right, given that our Digital selves are effectively immortal from this point forward - even though they will ultimate just be boiled down to some coordinate in a vector graph for eternity.

[techdragon]

I think you expect too much. The end result is that she assets rights she already had yesterday, rights she had years ago before DALL-E or Stable Diffusion even existed… there’s nothing new here… just existing power structures that give the rich and famous some measure of control over their likeness due to it being part of their personal brands and thus their l business interests… while the non rich and famous have no right to privacy in public and short the limited protections that have been implemented in some circumstances against revenge porn, no right to protect their likeness being misused… from people taking pictures in public, to AI generated images… they do not have protections against this kind of thing as no act has been perpetuated against them unless it crosses a tiny minority of laws against things like commercial imagery rights which is why models have to sign a release… but that won’t protect from generated imagery given away for free.

[Teever]

Ironically I think that her fame has a chance of being her undoing on this subject and we'll end up with a situation where the famous have to endure certain kinds of sexual content being produced that features their likeness while the little people do not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

[apantel]

It’s going to spread to the little people too. Once deepfake technology proliferates to the point where anyone can train and run a model on consumer hardware using photos and videos from someone’s social media profile, what do you think the boys at school are going to do with it?

[Mountain_Skies]

Hollywood is already struggling with how to handle these types of issues, with actors wanting to maintain control of their likeness and studios wanting to be able to own those at the very least as a "work for hire" property in the context of a movie character. Not that this is completely new. Crispen Glover sued over the producers of 'Back to the Future II' using another actor to give the impression of him playing the George McFly character instead of recasting the character or writing around the absence of the character. IIRC, Glover ended up winning.

[foogazi]

> If this was just some random person, this would be a blip on nightly news - similar to the revengeporn website stuff.

Still a crime regardless of the victims notoriety

[crote]

> Swift, IMO, should feel a certain sense of weird-luckiness? to literally the Human where we begin the discussion of protecting ourselves from AI fakes....

Did you miss the part about the images containing her being raped and assaulted? This isn't a deepfake ripoff concert or something.

This woman is being actively stalked in real life by multiple people. She literally needs 24/7 security to protect her from weirdos. I highly doubt she's going to care even the slightest about being part of the "discussion", and the fact that you'd even suggest she should "feel lucky" shows an incredible lack of empathy on your part.

[samstave]

Sorry, actually I wasnt really following what was happening in this case, mostly because I don't care about anything at all related to Taylor Swift - but I do care about how we navigate the laws of AI likeness ownership.

Her personal circumstances suck - and it was insensitive for me to not mentino that, but I did so out of ignorance, because I dont care about taylor swift - not because I am lacking empathy.

SO, apologies for that. I stand my my point, and I hope this gets Swiftly resolved in a manner that beneficially covers all.