Inch Eepfake pornography has manipulated people who are of public interest, suffering and fake performances of artists: a list of horrors that grows from the use of realistic performances based on AI, there are more and more. Your own image, including other physical functions, such as a voice, are available everywhere. A few seconds of templates from the video of mobile phones are enough to create reliable imitations, at least superficially.
A few days before the beginning of the presidency of the Danish Council of the EU, the Ministry of Culture in Copenhagen announced that threatening violations of personal rights were achieved through legislative initiative. The idea, represented not only by government parties, but also more than 80 percent of members of European ebarters in a joint explanation, is full of good intentions. However, the planned processing of the copyright law does not pay tribute.
The copyright, finally, serves to ensure compliance with economic interests, well, authors. This is important and correct, but in no case is as sensitive as the protection of individual personality traits from abuse. Copyright tools simply do not work here.
The purpose of the Danish project is to protect the general public from the creation and distribution of digital fakes of individual personal characteristics. In addition, the artists should be sent a handle against unauthorized imitations. In particular, the plan is that people should be able to ask for social networks platforms to independently delete false images. Now the moderation loops of large platforms are formed from the notorious indifference, especially for individual users. For some reason, something with a Danish initiative should change, remains open.
Finally, the design, even before he pours into the legal language, makes himself rather toothless. Violations of the planned copyright to your own appearance, unlike various rules of Danish copyright, should not be clearly supported. This is a little like giving someone trees.
A weak regulation of private law is created, the coverage of which is also quite doubtful
AI generated voice
Here a weak private rules of law are created, the coverage of which is also quite doubtful. Because copyright works essentially as a chain of international agreements. This is effective only when it is accepted and used in a large part of the world.
In the end, another open question is what happens when people transfer copyright for their appearance and voice voluntarily. In standardized contracts for gags in the cinema and gaming industry, the corresponding empty points are often common practice. Among other things, against the compulsory “consent” and not enough rewarded disposal of AI, the disposal of their votes, the almost annual blow to the computer games industry has just finished.
One of the results of industrial actions is that even in the case of the general voice indicator of AI, the original speaker has the right to pay. At this stage, the strengthening of copyright can be even very useful. In the end, copyrights are reasonably tested for the remuneration of artwork. However, as creative people should experience again and again, without organizing interests, state intervention or significant economic power of the owner of rights and again and again to its limits.
And whether the private victims of Deepfakes with further preparation of copyright will really help, they can at least interrogate, despite all the good intentions.
Protection of personal rights is a high asset for which there are rules. They should be used sequentially and adapt, if necessary. With a majority by 80 percent, much can be transferred to parliament.
