'No Fakes Act' Wants To Protect Actors and Singers From Unauthorized AI Replicas (theverge.com) 60
Emilia David reports via The Verge: A bipartisan bill seeks to create a federal law to protect actors, musicians, and other performers from unauthorized digital replicas of their faces or voices. The Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act of 2023 -- or the No Fakes Act -- standardizes rules around using a person's faces, names, and voices. Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Thom Tillis (R-NC) sponsored the bill.
It prevents the "production of a digital replica without consent of the applicable individual or rights holder" unless part of a news, public affairs, sports broadcast, documentary, or biographical work. The rights would apply throughout a person's lifetime and, for their estate, 70 years after their death. The bill includes an exception for using digital duplicates for parodies, satire, and criticism. It also excludes commercial activities like commercials as long as the advertisement is for news, a documentary, or a parody. Individuals, as well as entities like a deceased person's estate or a record label, can file for civil action based on the proposed rules. The bill also explicitly states that a disclaimer stating the digital replica was unauthorized won't be considered an effective defense.
It prevents the "production of a digital replica without consent of the applicable individual or rights holder" unless part of a news, public affairs, sports broadcast, documentary, or biographical work. The rights would apply throughout a person's lifetime and, for their estate, 70 years after their death. The bill includes an exception for using digital duplicates for parodies, satire, and criticism. It also excludes commercial activities like commercials as long as the advertisement is for news, a documentary, or a parody. Individuals, as well as entities like a deceased person's estate or a record label, can file for civil action based on the proposed rules. The bill also explicitly states that a disclaimer stating the digital replica was unauthorized won't be considered an effective defense.
Why are sports broadcasts excepted? (Score:3)
Also the news; why does the news need to create digital replicas that aren't part of digital affairs? That really feels like a loophole for "news" to create "news" without repercussions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely they would be labeled "reenactment" as they usually do. Just certain broadcasters *cough*fox*cough tend to take creative license with stuff like this, so this act really should target "political" deepfakes, since those are already out in full force. Mostly to scam people.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume: replays.
For example, virtual replays done by this company: https://www.3dreplays.com/en/ [3dreplays.com] (website has lots of soccer examples)
Re: (Score:3)
Probably because "re-inactment" and "instant replay" count as this.
Basically there is a huge "loophole" wide enough to slide a ship though if they don't explicitly mention this. Because any "digital replica" includes archive footage of the actual person. Remember a deepfake need not be just video or just audio, it can be the original video with a tampered audio, or vice versa just as easily.
Like really I don't see this act doing much except prohibiting the unauthorized use of a person as selling point by AI
Easy to see the money behind this. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The bill doesn't even mention AI. As far as I can tell it even applies to, say, photoshopped images.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it didn't "cover" AI. I said it's not exclusive to AI. Aka applies even to... (aka, inclusive of other things, not exclusive of AI).
Re: (Score:1)
Those uses are already authorized because the actors have already signed over all rights to their digital likenesses when they turned up to an audition
The real shock for actors is going to be when the industry starts getting something like the "this person does not exist" website but for whole fully rigged and modelled fake personalities.
It won't take too long before you can give instructions to something like ChatGPT to drive creation of animation sequences, with realistic physics and then no actor will ever have the conundrum of having to appear in a hemorrhoids cream commercial ever again - and then from that, on to making full movies.
Will the viewing
Re: (Score:2)
This ^
The market for live theater is probably safer than screen.
Look at how far stable diffusion technology has come in just a few years. Maybe not in absolute capability but in affordability and superior models, along with algorithms to detect and reject faulty results like messed up hands and faces. Its not going to be long before its possible to make a "photo real film" without actual actors.
There won't be any way prevent this either, 1A is going to protect the studios right to do it. If the SAG people
Re: (Score:3)
You skipped porn from the progression. If they aren't the first ones doing this then they will certainly be early adopters of the tech. The cam girl gets replaced by an AI driven VR replica which can be modified in a number of basic ways and syncs with interactive sex toys. At first on demand access and then subscription-based.
Re: (Score:2)
The cam girl gets replaced by an AI driven VR replica which can be modified in a number of basic ways and syncs with interactive sex toys.
This was the day Jared realized all the girls professing their undying love and devotion for him were actually 50 year old Pentiums in a mouldy basement.
Re: (Score:2)
Those uses are already authorized because the actors have already signed over all rights to their digital likenesses when they turned up to an audition
No they didn't. Seriously have you not been paying even the slightest amount of attention to the strikes these past few months?
Re: (Score:2)
In some cases replicas are produced from previously recorded material. An obvious example of this would be the Tom Hanks fake commercials, we all in an absolute miracle of timing, all just saw hit the headlines just before we start hearing about this bill.
still need the union to ban / limit in contracts s (Score:2)
still need the union to ban / limit in contracts so they can't be forced to sign it away to get work
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. Good luck getting work as a new hire if you have no choice but to sign away those rights, as is already happening for many no-name actors who are just starting out today. There are numerous stories of them signing the contract and then being whisked into a 3D scanning booth so that the studio can have digital doubles for extras in a crowd scene. What goes unstated is that the model could just as easily be used in a leading role in a few years, played by a talented no-name in a performance capture sui
Re: (Score:2)
This might be a good thing, as they have the option of disappearing into the crowd when they don't want to activate whatever glamour magic they might have that identifies them. Being famous can be more of a curse than a blessing.
Re: (Score:3)
"This might be a good thing, as they have the option of disappearing into the crowd when they don't want to activate whatever glamour magic they might have that identifies them."
Or when the studio wants them to because they've asked for too much money or don't want to work the unreasonable hours requested... or it can cover for them if they go on strike.
If AI can replace you (Score:1)
then you deserve to be replaced.
70 Years? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Did "Weird Al" Yankovic have to pay anything? (Score:2)
It also excludes commercial activities like commercials as long as the advertisement is for news, a documentary, or a parody.
I have always wondered if "Weird Al" Yankovic had to pay anything to the original artists for the parody videos he makes...
And I thought that TV commercials using genuine original artist songs had to pay them in order to use their songs.
Anybody knows for sure?
Re: (Score:1)
Obvious parodies are fair use. I believe as long as you attribute the original you're safe.
Re:Did "Weird Al" Yankovic have to pay anything? (Score:5, Informative)
(If you read the album liner notes, you'll see that Weird Al always attributes the original artist.)
Re:Did "Weird Al" Yankovic have to pay anything? (Score:5, Informative)
He also gets their permission, even though that's not required.
Re: (Score:2)
He also gets their permission, even though that's not required.
On Gilbert Gottfried's podcast, they went over a lot of that. It is widely considered that when Weird Al does a parody of your song, you have made the grade, so almost all song artists consider it a career milestone. He does get permission in all cases.
There was one singer, I think it was Cardi B, who balked at it, so he didn't do a parody of her. Apparently she was told by many that it was a bad career move.
Re: (Score:2)
And "Chicken Pot Pie" of "Live and Let Die" by Paul McCartney.
Mostly because Paul McCartney is vegetarian.
It Was OK For Us To Play Robots (Score:1)
But it's not OK for robots to play us. Gotcha.
Individual artsts may be caught in the crossfire (Score:2)
Would these artists be liable and/or prosecuted under this new bill? That would seem excessive...
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes you have to adapt what you use for demos. Journals won't take papers that use the "Lenna" photograph unless there's a damn good reason they need that specific photo, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
I had to look up what a Lenna Image [wikipedia.org] was....never had heard of that one before.
I fail to see the "controversy" however, just the face of a pretty girl...it isn't like it shows her ta-tas or anything else sensitive...
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, it's a photo from Playboy, and nobody ever secured permission to start using it in technical papers, so it's a needless copyright infringement as well. Also, very few people really object to it on the grounds that the cropped-out section has a nude woman, because it is tightly cropped, but those few are really loud.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, in case of actors, does this apply to making a replica of a character that the actor plays? That could cause all kinds of problems. And the definition of "sound recording artist" in the act seems way too broad - potentially being paid for a single gig while in a high school band, or even busking, could fall under the definition. It seems to be just creating another exuse for rights holders to flood places like youtube with copyright strikes - or in this case, replica violations.
fake vs fake (Score:2)
From my point of view, studios don't need to bother with digital copies of existing actors. If what I see on the screen acts believable, I don't care if is a brand new character or a copy of a human. You need a copy when the film has the real actor in it, but needs digital replacement only for some scenes, so no more body doubles, no more stunt actors.
Re: (Score:2)
Historically, a crappy movie or TV show needed a good "anchor" actor to make it vaguely appealing. You can see it all over the place - essentially a crap product, but one good actor doing an amazing job (and likely being paid a boat load because without them the producers would have nothing).
As such, if you've just made a crappy bit of TV, you need a good "anchor" - so you CGI in some famous actors face and voice and you're good to go. Only you're not - because you won't have their acting skill to build you
No Fakes? (Score:2)
Considering most of the entertainment industry are fake as hell...
It's not Tom Cruise (Score:1)
It's Tommy Cruz, his AI lookalike, the casting director chose him amongst 18932433214 applicants for the role.
That his face and name are similar to an existing person is purely by chance.
They're gone, nothing will prevent it.
First somebody with money will bring out a movie without any actors, a year or 2 later actors will all be called 'waiters'.
Typists and stenographers had to get a new job as well, it's not the end of the world.
Just the end of being paid millions for 12 minutes of screen appearance.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the stated reason for the bill. The rule of thumb in bill naming is to invert the real purpose as a form of misdirection.
Who does this seem to hurt? The studios. So it must help the studios. But how? Surely paying money is bad for the profit hungry monsters taking advantage of these poor artists with their mega mansions, basements filled with stripper poles, and assistants who only have to pick out all the skittles flavors they don't like.
Paying money sucks but it's worth it if you get something in
Re: (Score:1)
I hope that they there will be no such law. This will lead to a chaotic environment, I g
Re: (Score:2)
There are people in the world who really look similar. So... does this apply for videos of those people? What if a studio makes a digital copy of a person with a similarity to Tom Hanks? That person sells them permission? Or.. if the digital model have 4% random noise added to Tom Hanks' model. It sure looks somewhat similar, but it is not Tom Hanks, nor it is stated to be a model of Tom Hanks. What is that going to be?
I hope that they there will be no such law. This will lead to a chaotic environment, I guess.
If dead-ringers for Tom Hanks appearing in commercials and on billboards and misleading people into thinking they were Tom Hanks was an issue, we probably would have had a law for that already.
In fact, for voice, I'm sure there's already a lot of voice artists who could be a convincing fake Tom Hanks for a radio commercial.
Either way, I don't think they "not-quite Tom Hanks" is a big issue. If you're putting an AI Tom Hanks in your movie it's because you want people to think it's Tom Hanks. If you change it
Viodeogame NPCs (Score:2)
This could create a headache for game studios. Let's say in a game you have an NPC, just some generic, unimportant NPC that gets killed by the main boss before you get to battle them or something, and thus not based on an actual actor. Unfortunately it turns out that NPC happens to look very much like Joe Nobody, an up-and-coming actor/waiter who signed his likeness over to some big movie studio. The studio them proceeds to sue the game creator for creating an unauthorized digital replica.
It's even more di
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are right here this is a bad idea and is going to lead to a lot of litigation and frankly 'random' outcomes as to who prevails and who does not.
If I ask AI to read some text as male with a deep voice and posh Scottish accent - its going to sound a hell of lot like Sean Connery. While he was a talented voice actor - his voice, like most human voice is not all that unique. His estate will sue and some poor jury will be sitting listen to clips asked to decide how alike they are and how alike is to
Oh yeah this inspires confidence.. (Score:2)
'prevents the "production of a digital replica without consent of the applicable individual or rights holder" unless part of a news, public affairs'
So unauthorized production of digital replica's for the purpose of producing false news and politics materials are exempted. So the bill explicitly contains the exception to produce a fake video of Biden or Trump doing any sort of sketchy crap and air it on CNN/FOX and report it as news as well as for politicians to do the same.
Both D's and R's on the sponsor li
Re: (Score:2)
Counterpoint:
Certain "news" companies make stuff up anyway. Why is suddenly a problem that it has fake video.
-
Make a bill that prohibits all the fake news instead.
Re: (Score:2)
It was always a problem and this bill would have fixed this problem [or provided a path to legally address it anyway] but they explicitly exempted it instead.
Without such a law and active enforcement of it deepfakes can become the norm and at that point we are all literally just taking on faith whatever we believe to be true. By controlling the information available to reasonable people you can control the only reasonable conclusions available to them. Instead of one person, one vote you de facto have one [
Who call tell the difference, even it's not AI? (Score:1)
Times square and Las Vegas will never be the same. Elvis died in 1977.
70 years after death (Score:2)
Isn't the American way for each person to pull themselves up by their bootstraps?
How about close matches (Score:2)
What if someone creates a close match without ever saying it was the person in question?
An example would be a "near" clone of Trump that looks/dresses/sounds like him but they never call him Trump. They could even change the eye color or make the figure his actual height of 5'11" as opposed to his "declared" height of 6'2". Then we will have endless litigation like the music industry has where songs sound like other songs and people have to decide whether there is a copyright violation or not.
AI is a repeat of Napster (Score:2)
Lars Ulrich fought Napster until the bitter end, but ultimately the technology always wins.
What about fake legislators? (Score:2)
This is a bipartisan bill, that will have to be passed by partisans who literally can't vote on a single thing right now because they can't select a House Speaker. Where can we find some real legislators who can make laws that accomplish something meaningful? Oh never mind, all the real legislators have long ago been replaced by the fake ones. Maybe they were elected by fake electors too.