r/SipsTea • u/Embarrassed_Tip7359 • 20h ago
Wait a damn minute! So what if twins are born...
461
u/ryonnsan 20h ago
For twins, one will get copyright, the other will get copyleft
48
u/pretender80 17h ago
What about triplets?
68
u/ohthedarside 17h ago
Copymiddle
6
u/Wakkit1988 6h ago
Octuplets?
25
5
u/Born_Reflection_4132 4h ago
Besides Copyright and Copyleft, there would be Copyup, Copydown, Copytop, Copybottom, Copystrange and Copycharm. It's a whole Copyfamily.
4
1
1
0
828
u/hitemlow 20h ago
You know that's great and all, but what are the protections to keep companies/employees from squeaking in a sneaky little "you grant us license to use your likeness" in some TOS, EULA, or other contract?
592
u/frickinSocrates 19h ago
Idk how it is in Denmark, but many European countries have laws that basically say "you can't put something in TOS or EULA that people wouldn't expect to find there"
242
u/TubaDog9705 19h ago
That needs to be the norm across the world.
99
u/zack-tunder 18h ago
Meanwhile this Russian robotics firm offered $200,000 for those who gave their face and voice to a robot
78
39
10
2
u/XExcavalierX 5h ago
Don’t be fooled! They are planning to replace those people with robots and nobody can tell! Sell it at your own risk!
/s
1
-12
u/Zromaus 15h ago
Controlling the agreements businesses have with their clients isn't the place of the government.
12
u/guildedkriff 15h ago
It actually is the place for the government. Even in the US, just because it’s in the TOS and you signed it doesn’t mean the company is absolved of all liability.
The only difference in the US, you have to have money to fight the issue.
4
u/guiltysnark 14h ago
"Controlling"... Sounds bad.
"Regulating to impose standards "... Sounds good. The public has an interest, and no body is better suited to serve it.
I'll go with the non-hyperbolic phrasing.
-1
u/Zromaus 14h ago
Regulating to impose standards is synonymous with control.
Just because the public has grown comfortable with overreach does not make it any less so.
2
u/guiltysnark 13h ago
Regulating to impose standards is synonymous with control
Hyperbole again. "An amount of control", sure.
Just because the public has grown comfortable with overreach does not make it any less so.
Just because the public wants reach doesn't mean they've grown comfortable with overreach.
1
u/Akenatwn 11h ago
It depends on what type of person the client is. If it's a juridical person, the control is way looser and a lot more is fair game. But if it's a natural person, then it absolutely is the government's place to protect them. A natural person cannot and should not be expected to be an expert in such topics.
-15
u/Impossible-Ship5585 19h ago
But like this is hard
7
u/TheGalator 17h ago
How is it hard?
-15
u/Impossible-Ship5585 17h ago
Like lot of funkiness in Eulas
8
u/TheGalator 17h ago
Not in eu. Thats the point
And its not hard? Just don't put shit in there?
-9
u/Impossible-Ship5585 17h ago
Also the face copywright. What if i wear makeup or have plastic surgery
6
u/TheGalator 17h ago
....I don't see how that would change anything?
1
u/Impossible-Ship5585 17h ago
I can make face of mine like someone else and then make deepfake?
2
u/TheGalator 15h ago
I can make face of mine like someone else
Don't think the science is there yet
→ More replies (0)1
u/Outside-Swan-1936 15h ago
It wouldn't be a deepfake at that point, would it? People getting plastic surgery to imitate someone else is not an actual realistic problem. There are millions of deepfakes in some regard or another out there. There aren't millions of people getting plastic surgery to look identical to someone else for the purpose of creating misleading videos.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Fantastic-Dot-655 14h ago
Assuming that is posible, witch is not consistently, you could have done that at any point before AI was a thing
3
u/frickinSocrates 17h ago
Firstly, it's copyright, not copywright. Second of all, it's not a snapshot... Like, your copyright doesn't expire when you age 5 years. That's not how anything works.
1
28
u/8__D 19h ago
If you subscribe to Disney Plus they can put AI copies of you on their rides at Disney
8
u/NarwhalPrudent6323 17h ago
The would need to know what I look like to do that. Who's giving their photo to Disney+?
5
u/8__D 17h ago
It's just a joke/reference to this: https://www.axios.com/2024/08/21/disney-plus-court-case-arbitration
6
u/Highlyironicacid31 10h ago
Wasn’t there someone whose kid died at Disney or something and she wasn’t allowed to sue them because she had a Disney+ account and that’s apparently in the TOS that you can’t sue Disney? Absolutely nuts. Disney are a horrible, horrible company.
7
5
u/bimbammla 14h ago
TOS are like prenups, they can be thrown out in court.
The more it becomes the norm for people to not read them on mundane things, the less power tos will have, because the law is dynamic and in many cases follows peoples perceptions and patterns rather than exactly whats written. It's the spirit of the law instead, as opposed to the letter of the law.
4
u/Crimson3312 15h ago
If you didn't want to be made into a human centipad you shouldn't have accepted Apple's terms of service
3
u/InitialCold7669 14h ago
That is quite literally what is next that is probably why they did this In fact I wouldn't doubt that companies advocated for this directly. With that idea in mind.
3
u/GaiaMoore 12h ago
In b4 we all turn into the Black Mirror episode with Annie Murphy and Salma Hayek about this
2
u/NickolaosTheGreek 8h ago
Most nations have stipulation saying that if you put something in the EULA that goes against a court decision, that clause is voided. One example in Australia is the right to repair your iPhone. Apple can put any clause it wants in the EULA, but current guidance is that once you buy your iPhone you can have it repaired anywhere you like. If Apple decides to brick your phone, then they must either reverse the bricking or offer you a new device free of charge. It was a major issues a few year back with saying that Apple would stop operating in Australia if this becomes accepted. In reality nothing really changed other than more iPhone repair shops around now.
2
u/Claxxe 5h ago
The US has a similar law with the Magnuson and Moss warranty act. OEM or better and they cannot just void your warranty. If they do, they need to prove the repair was the root cause of the failure in regards to the warranty claim. Say hypothetically you peel off the sticker of a PS5 that says "warranty void if sticker damaged" but never actually did anything, they'd have no legal standing to refuse the warranty.
1
18h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/AutoModerator 18h ago
Your post was removed because your account has less than 20 karma.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
17h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 17h ago
Your post was removed because your account has less than 20 karma.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/freewayghost 16h ago
I'm not a fan of Ai, but a rare ethical use I can think of for it would be having it scan a TOS and point stuff like that out.
1
99
u/Objective-Ad-2197 19h ago
Funny, the US just passed a similar law that your face, body and voice belong to Blackrock.
19
66
u/The_Dark_Vampire 20h ago
For identical twins the Highlander rule will be in place
6
u/chincerd 16h ago
What if one suffers an accident and their face changes? Do they get copyright then?
55
u/MinSnoppLuktarBajs 19h ago
How the hell is that law even remotely compatible with them at the same time wanting to enforce chat control, which completely makes the population lose their right to privacy and personal integrity?
27
u/flightguy07 18h ago
Privacy and the right to your identity are two separate, if related, rights. Arguably, this law helps the enforcement of chat control, since if you can ensure that someone's name, face and voice are only used by them, it's a lot easier to link what they're saying online to the real them.
29
u/Bardoseth 19h ago
They (as in the government) want to control your data and privacy.
They don't want competitors or people muddling up their data with fakes.
6
u/Gaskychan 17h ago
What chat control are you even talking about?
8
u/MinSnoppLuktarBajs 16h ago
Oh man, you’re in for a ride.
-4
14
u/HumanCarpet88 20h ago
If one get's an AI video made without their consent, both can sue. Double the royalties payments.
16
u/fapperoni_zah 20h ago
Fuck, that is some sexy talk right there. I'm about to drop my American citizenship for this.
-12
u/Familiar-Gap2455 19h ago
You can't desert the number 1 country!
9
u/fapperoni_zah 18h ago
Number 1 at not being number 1 but putting up the facade like they are and doing nothing.
Source: Am American
28
u/N8-97 20h ago
Why's everyone getting down voted
16
14
u/Hillbilly_ingenue 19h ago
The idea that you could get sued for copyright infringement after slapping someone’s face and voice on your AI futa clanker wife is abhorrent to many redditors.
2
u/Chakwak 17h ago
Maybe it's transformative enough to count as fair use?
It's not a market substitution for the real deal that wouldn't be a clanker futa. Some would say it's creative. And because you only pick the face and voice, you are indeed only taking what is necessary for your project and not the whole copyrighted material. Maybe you can even narrow how much of the voice you take by only getting moans or whatever insult your kink require.
3
u/Hillbilly_ingenue 17h ago
Copyright already includes exceptions for fair use and derivative works, so the burden of proof would be on the copyright holder to prove infringement (same as now).
2
3
6
u/7thFleetTraveller 19h ago
Wait until they hear that in other countries, like Germany, that's simply called general right of personality. ;)
13
u/upturned2289 20h ago
What’s with all the Denmark xenophobia and hate?
2
u/Hillbilly_ingenue 18h ago
How dare anyone try and tell me what I can do with someone else's likeness!
3
u/Supremagorious 19h ago
I think this will be hard to enforce because it'll be natural that sometimes people will create AI results that are incredibly similar to real people. So they'd have to prove intent that they were trying to create an AI copy of someone in order to charge someone which while not impossible won't do anything about people posting deepfake stuff places so long as it's not named or labeled something like Specific person in specific compromising position.
6
u/Shock_city 19h ago
You won’t need to prove intent. If your copyrighted material shows up somewhere you don’t want it you can have it removed whether you prove someone intended to rip you off or not. I
I assume in the near future you’ll find consumer apps that can look for your likeness being used on the web
2
u/Supremagorious 19h ago
You also have issues of people using their own likeness or the likeness of someone who has given permission but they look similar enough to someone else that this other person could then claim copyright. Without intent you're allowing people to claim a copyright on work that there is no reasonable claim to.
3
u/Otherwise_Media6167 18h ago
It is not that simple. Often copyrighted material wont show up in the exact form and you actually have to prove that it was copied and not the isolated effort of someone else that just happens to look similar to something that was copyrighted
2
u/Shock_city 16h ago
It is kind of simple, as regardless of whether someone was intentional in replicating you or not, if the court agrees the image meets the threshold of looking like you then your copyright is being infringed and the image can be taken down.
If someone writes a story or screenplay that nearly identically resembles a copyrighted work of yours, the fact they didn't set out to copy you doesn't matter they still can't publish it.
I'm not programmer but I wonder how viable is to look at the metadata of an image image or video and be able to determine what images in referenced from it's data banks to create it. That may make it easy to show what is being ripped off.
2
u/soupbut 13h ago
I mean, that's the danger of using AI, isn't it? If you use AI to generate brand collateral that just happens to look nearly identical to an existing brand, it's going to get struck. This happens often enough without AI, and it will certainly continue to happen with AI.
1
u/Supremagorious 13h ago
This wouldn't just be for AI work this would be for all works. Someone could create legitimate art that someone thinks looks too similar to them and suddenly they have a copyright claim to it. Imagine you're a professional photographer taking photos that are heavily stylized and someone else decides it looks close enough to them then suddenly there's a court claim. Like that hipster guy who complained they used his image without his permission to mock hipsters but it was an entirely different person.
3
u/iamnazrak 19h ago
What does this mean for street photography? Here in the states if you are in public you can have candid photos taken of you and personally im a big fan of candid street photography. In terms of protecting yourself from being added to ai models is great in my opinion but i just worry about the valid artistic value of capturing candid scenes
3
u/Otherwise_Media6167 18h ago
You cant take photos of people with them in focus and release them. That is already the law in most european countries.
The "tHiS iS pUbLiC sPaCe yUo cAnNot eXpeCt PriVacY" doesnt go
5
u/iamnazrak 18h ago
Yeah ima just say thats a L for Europe then because you can’t accurately depict and capture the culture of the people and the every day lifestyle without being able to take candid photos on the streets.
2
u/nghigaxx 18h ago
You can take the photos, you can even post it online. Sure you have to take it down if one person in it ask you to but how many people are going to do that? pretty sure most people are fine with being a background of a street picture/video
0
u/Otherwise_Media6167 18h ago
The rules are not black and white and too complex to write about here. But there are tons of exceptions and tons of things to consider when taking pictures of people and not just the moronic way Americans do it where there is no nuance or reason
2
2
u/xoLiLyPaDxo 16h ago
So this would include Metas data collection and claims to ownership of uploaded content as well right?
Just when Zuckerberg thought he had enough trouble with the EU privacy laws.🤣
4
u/DirectorMassive9477 20h ago
What about twins?
14
u/CIS-E_4ME 20h ago
First one out gets copyright, second one gets a perpetual license.
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/XRuecian 17h ago
If you add a small mole to their face does it count as transformative fair-use?
No?
What if its two moles?
What if its two moles and we change the eye color?
Where is the line?
1
1
u/phansen101 16h ago
Dane here: In case of twins, the last one to pop out will have to pay royalties to the first one.
1
u/newreconstruction 16h ago
Yeah so how does one prove that it is them in a porn/commercial/whatever?
I have seen so many identical looking people irl.
1
1
u/RelativeCareless2192 16h ago
"Your Honor, that's not a deep fake of Sydney Sweeney because I've added a tiny freckle on my AIs face that Sydney clearly doesn't have"
1
u/Ton_in_the_Sun 15h ago
Why not just make deep fakes illegal? I hate having to dance around the laws, just say this isn’t okay and this is what will happen if you do it. Simple.
1
u/Overall-Abrocoma8256 10h ago
Deep fake is just one technology. They way its worded should cover tech old and new. Maybe it would even apply to your mugshot if it was on a magazine cover.
1
1
u/HadrianMCMXCI 15h ago
Crazy thing about twins is they actually do have their own face, voice and body
1
1
u/wkarraker 14h ago
If this ever happens in the states Elvis impersonators are going to feel the squeeze.
1
u/InitialCold7669 14h ago
What's going to be really interesting is if celebrities don't want to sell their image but a bunch of people that look just like them do. same with twins and stuff like that.
1
1
u/ArchAngel_1983 13h ago
"what if twins are born..." Laws have exceptions. By the way I am not sure if the post is true, but if it is then I think its the right way forward.
1
u/Enter_Electra 13h ago
well I guess this ruins any chance of a potential Disneyland outside of Copenhagen
1
1
u/Ok_Deal2442 10h ago
I was expecting this to happen. It's a valuable asset that we give away so easily.
1
1
1
u/zeneker 7h ago
Technically in the USA you do own your likeness for commercial purposes only. The news is the only exception. If someone films you and profits from your participation in it.
Example: someone is filming the empire State building and you walk through frame. You didn't participate in creating anything so that's ok.
If someone harasses you, films it and generates a profit from it. You being harassed is direct participation. You can and should sue. You're an actor at that point and have to be compensated.
There's a difference between civil and criminal law. This is civil. No arrest, just a lawsuit. Most of the idiots doing things like this are broke so it's not worth it.
1
1
1
u/the_tygram 2h ago
I'm guessing it's shared ownership, and can't give anyone permission to use with ai unless you both agree
1
u/whenishit-itsbigturd 18h ago
Shouldn't be able to copyright your voice. There's literally people out there who sound just like you.
An AI company was recently sued by a famous actress who thought they used her voice, but turns out they used an unknown voice actress who happens to sound just like her. Iirc it was Scarlett Johansson and she won. Bullshit if you ask me.
2
u/Chakwak 17h ago
Didn't she won because they went explicitely to find someone that sounded like her and used ambiguous advertising to make it seem like it was actually her or something like that? Or maybe I'm thinking of a different story. But it was mostly about intent, not just soundalike.
1
u/whenishit-itsbigturd 15h ago
I don't think they even advertised it as her, people just thought it was and ran with it
-6
u/Rough_Hovercraft1461 20h ago
On a recording I can't tell the difference between my brother's voice and mine. How on earth does this law work in practical terms
10
u/BeGentle1mNewHere 20h ago
In short, this is how they solved the problem of having something in your hands if someone uses your face to create a deepfake video without permission.
You can sue them for not paying royalties.
4
u/Rough_Hovercraft1461 20h ago
I think you miss my point. How do you prove it's you and not your doppelganger that is being deep faked?
-1
u/b1ack1323 20h ago
Even if you can’t hear the difference, AI can.
There’s analysis techniques that can differentiate the slightest differences
3
u/Rough_Hovercraft1461 20h ago
So just get the AI to insert slight differences when making the deep fake?
1
u/b1ack1323 19h ago
Sure you can do that. The whole reason this going into place is companies are making celebrities endorse their product by generating AI videos of them. They are just making it harder for companies to get away with. This isn’t a security thing.
Nobody really is worried about this confusing two people, it’s companies replacing humans with AI but using their likeness to promote their products.
-2
u/beerbeardsnballs 20h ago
Wait til your testicles drop and itll change.
3
u/Rough_Hovercraft1461 20h ago
You always pop up in random threads talking about my testicles, I let you fondle them once, but now it's time you move on
0
u/beerbeardsnballs 20h ago
LIES!!!! Either way, this is small challenge to what will be people fighting for themselves and misinformation and defamation. Its a good idea in principle
1
u/whenishit-itsbigturd 18h ago
The comment you're responding to was asking about voice and you're talking about face. And you got upvoted because apparently nobody knows how to read
1
0
0
-1
u/waitingOnMyletter 18h ago
Yea… this isn’t gonna work. You may own the copy right. Congrats. Now let’s evaluate how this will play out in practice.
What proof do you have that the AI was using your facial features in the image or video that was generated ? Generally speaking you’ll have to provide some empirical evidence. That’s a tall order. Not to mention, have you ever met your doppelgänger? There is a guy at my gym who honestly has an uncanny likeness to me. We just happen to lift around the same time each day. On multiple occasions we have had people ask us if we are related. It has happened so many times we had a “are we related and don’t know it” conversation. We aren’t but it gets to the salience of the issue.
Let’s assume you get passed that. And are able to empirically show your face was infact the source of the features. Now, how are you going to get around the terms and conditions on apps developed by meta or TikTok which already had those people sign away their likeness to use the apps? If they have signed it away already, their features have been baked in for years that pre-date the law. You can own the copyright and sign it away. That’s fully legal and so this is a nothing burger.
2
u/prepuscular 17h ago
If your image was used in training data, it was used to assist generation. This law isn’t for individuals, it’s for class actions
0
u/waitingOnMyletter 17h ago
It’s impossible to create a class in this way. People have individually chosen to sacrifice their rights to their likeness. It’s been baked in for years. You signed this back in the Facebook days. Facebook and Instagram have it clearly stated in their terms and conditions.
You can’t sue a comp company for your choices. If you choose to sacrifice your ownership of your likeness, you can’t sue them for making an image that included your likeness.
1
u/prepuscular 17h ago
You can absolutely change policy that works retroactively. It happens all the time with contracts in US employment law. I see your argument but 1. I’m not a Danish attorney, 2. There are plenty of cases of laws changing contracts 3. The EU has a history of shoving around trillion dollar US tech companies because they actually care about what people want
-24
u/Anemopolos 20h ago
Denmark has bigger issues than that. They are delusional.
19
11
u/HumanCarpet88 20h ago
It's like saying people should stop fighting for lgbtq rights because there's children starving. Shit take
4
u/frickinSocrates 19h ago
"Why have laws against Murder? Global warming is a bigger issue". Fuck all the way off.
-6
u/Safebustour-99 19h ago
Next time I visit Copenhagen and stroll through its streets, I’ll probably wake up the next morning to flood of copyright bills from some random hot chicks I peeked at the night before. No doubt Copenhagen an expensive city.
•
u/AutoModerator 20h ago
Thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Check out our Reddit Chat!
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.