[ad_1]
This week, on January 26, British broadcaster ITV will launch a TV show on its ITVX streaming platform that will feature celebrities living in neighborhoods as neighbors, getting into petty feuds and creating some unlikely epidemics. cultural interaction. However, don’t be fooled! Although the show’s stars initially appear to be some of the biggest names around — rapper Stormzy, footballer Harry Kane and actor Tom Holland, for example — they’re not real. In fact, “celebrities” were depicted by the Impressionists using “deepfake” technology — a digital mask that uses artificial intelligence to replace someone’s appearance with someone else’s likeness.
Six-part series produced by Tiger Aspect in partnership with synthetic media company StudioNeural “Deep Fake Neighbor Wars” It is the world’s first feature-length narrative program using deepfake technology. But this isn’t the first time we’ve seen this rapidly evolving technology deployed in entertainment and business. In 2021, an AI-powered content creation platform called Deepcake teamed up with Russian telecommunications company Megafon for an ad campaign featuring Bruce Willis — the action hero, despite his deteriorating health, by using “Digital twins” replace years. actual actors.
Every episode of ‘Deep Fake Neighbor Wars’ will start with a disclaimer and be led by Recently interviewed by The Guardian, the creators are not concerned about any legal implications of the show’s use of celebrity likenesses. However, as with all groundbreaking ideas, the concept could raise some questions when it operates in a space without much existing legal or moral precedent – especially on a mainstream media platform like ITVX. So what is the global legal precedent surrounding this new technology? What does its potential use in the commercial world mean – like Bruce Willis? We spoke to Ron Moscona, a partner at international law firm Dorsey & Whitney, and Ryan Meyer, legal counsel, an expert in intellectual property and technology law, to find out.
Based in London, Ron’s practice focuses on the long-term commercial interests of his clients, helping them make the most of their technology, intellectual property and brand. Referring to ITV’s new deepfake show, he said “obvious legal issues” would require the production team to be extra careful, “This kind of show is definitely pushing the envelope. It needs to make it very clear that the deepfake images are not real and The show was not sponsored or approved by the individuals portrayed.” He continued, “If a comedy is clearly making fun of a celebrity through parody or parody, this is usually not a problem. However, deepfake technology — especially high-quality technology — clearly increases the risk that people will be led astray.”
The second concern he highlighted was that such deepfakes could have a second life on social media after they first aired. Clips from the show can be shared with wider audiences online without context, making it harder to determine whether the footage is real or celebrity-approved. “For production, it makes sense to use images in a way that minimizes the risk of them being reused and disseminated out of context,” he added. “As with any comedy show, there is a risk of being accused of poor taste, invasion of privacy, or even defamation (defamation). But as long as the show makes it very clear that these people aren’t real people, or that real people don’t endorse it, and that the idea is to make fun of them, Free speech principles should protect programs from liability.”
LBB recently spoke with Ryan Meyer about the legal POV of AI-generated art – Discovery laws often take a long time to keep up with new technology. So how up-to-date is the law when it comes to deepfakes? Ryan, who specializes in US intellectual property (IP) law, explained that many aspects of the technology are already covered by existing legislation – although still “relatively new”. He said: “A person may be liable for using deepfake technology to violate another entity’s intellectual property or an individual’s right of publicity or privacy. And the technology itself may be protected by intellectual property rights. Malicious use of deepfakes may also constitute fraud , defamation, identity theft, and other civil and criminal violations.”
However, according to Ryan, only a handful of jurisdictions in the US have regulations specifically related to deepfake technology — mostly about pornography and election tampering. He agrees with his colleagues on the other side of the pond, and reiterates the danger that deepfake videos can have a second life as they circulate online — beyond the control of their creators and beyond local legal jurisdiction.
“Thanks to the Internet, video and other media are known to penetrate state and national borders, and what is legal in one jurisdiction may be illegal in another,” he said. “Even if someone makes a deepfake with innocent purposes and a clear disclaimer, once it’s released into the world, they have no control over where it goes, how many people see it, or how many of them get fooled And believe it to be real.” He continued, “Perhaps more importantly, they cannot control the harm caused to real, original people due to deepfakes. The international reach of technology exposes creators to some degree of Unknown risks, while also presenting challenges for law enforcement and victims seeking to stop malicious deepfakes.”
So how do people protect their images from deepfakes? Ron shared that while there is no copyright in a person’s image, celebrities can control the exploitation of their likeness through other legal concepts. “You can only protect the right to commercially exploit your image (your name or visual ‘likeness’) if you can prove that your image is recognizable and has some commercial value or that you are already exploiting it, “He said. “In the UK, under the ‘passing off law’ you can stop them if you can prove that you have acquired ‘goodwill’ (commercial value) in your name or likeness and that they have used your image without your permission Commercially exploiting your image. Your license ‘tricks’ the public into believing that you ‘authorize’ or ‘approve’ commercial exploitation.”
Rowan said other jurisdictions went a step further and gave people the benefit of accessing all the value their name or image created, but in the UK the law still required a person to have previously exploited their image commercially in order to protect its use or Obtain trademark registration. Or, he said, “privacy and data protection laws can often be used against unauthorized use of an individual’s name or photograph.”
Bruce Willis is just one example of a celebrity ‘licensing’ his image to another company for commercial purposes – but what does that really mean? Ron defines this “licensing” process as an agreement that allows a company to use a celebrity’s likeness without fear of being challenged for using the celebrity’s likeness. An added bonus is active sponsorship and media support from celebrities, which goes beyond passive use of imagery and is often an agreed part of the deal. He said, “If celebrities try to distance themselves from commercial exploitation, that can seriously undermine the commercial value of that exploitation. Licensing arrangements and the active cooperation of individuals are therefore often critical to extracting value and credibility.”
While Ryan didn’t see the exact terms of Bruce Willis’ deal with “Deepcake,” he did know that the actor granted the content platform the rights to his “digital twin.” Based on his previous knowledge of similar deals, Ryan speculates that the agreement will address the specifics of how the deepfake “likeness” will be used, such as depicting Bruce differently in clothing or hair, at a different age, or using his voice, catchphrases and others similar to him. Characteristics associated with public image. This control allows celebrities to block the use of their digital twins under specific circumstances — such as banning porn use, re-dubbing, or products that are portrayed in scenes or that conflict with their personal values.
Even with this level of control, Ryan warns that – by definition – licensing something means you give up some rights. “That’s true, even with a very narrow license,” he said. “Sometimes the licensors reasonably interpret the terms of the license differently, which can lead the licensee to exploit the license in ways the licensor did not anticipate or intend. This can be especially problematic for complex works such as television commercials or films, Because in these productions, busy celebrities may not be able to view all the content featuring their digital doubles.”
As for big names and brands looking to work with deepfake technology in the future, he added that as the technology matures and more legal issues surrounding it enter courts around the world, they should expect precedents to start to emerge, “and there may be legal issues around licensing.” Litigation disputes, especially if the technology and these licensing arrangements are new.” As deepfakes become more common in entertainment and business, he also said this new avenue for celebrity endorsement could be a key factor in the future. Standardized in entertainment contracts – including “licensing of digital twins for promotional or merchandising purposes” and key arrangements for transactions.
Still, as disconcerting as it may be to have a digital double around the world, Ryan expects many celebrities to soon follow in the Die Hard star’s footsteps — licensing their likeness for commercials and more. “Celebrities see them as an opportunity to be in many places at once,” he said, “to do a lot of work at the same time that celebrities would not otherwise be able or willing to do.”
[ad_2]
Source link