'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:Why are sports broadcasts excepted? (Score:0)
For stuff like this?
Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton win big in Super Tuesday 2016 as Sanders, Rubio, Cruz get pwned:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Trump angers China: After Taiwan call, Trump decides to double down against butthurt Chinese:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Or do they count as parody?
Re:Why are sports broadcasts excepted? (Score:2)
Re:Why are sports broadcasts excepted? (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:Why are sports broadcasts excepted? (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:Why are sports broadcasts excepted? (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. An extension of what already exists. Like people already make deepfake parody stuff audio stuff already. Audio is probably the easiest to "deepfake" to someone who isn't aware of what a deepfake sounds like.
What they should be expressly forbidding is the lies and deepfaking of any material for political purposes. Because right now they can lie, and people believe obvious lies. No AI or Deepfaking required. The only defence against a deepfake at present is proof that the subject of the deepfake doesn't exist. To fight a deepdake you have to pretty much file a lawsuit against whoever published it first to figure out if the source is legitimate or generated by AI.
At any rate, the clearer problem is the deepfaking of singers. This is because there is currently a disturbing trend of "AI covers" that are merely using the original song as the input and changing the singer's Voice by AI. It's STILL the original singer, just now they've been pitch warped to sound like another singer. Autotune on Steroids.
Easy to see the money behind this. (Score:1)
Re:Easy to see the money behind this. (Score:0)
Well the act is pointless then. 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, signed an agreement, and stepped into a scanning booth to be digitized. This has been happening for years already - long before all this "AI" nonsense starting becoming popular in the news since last the ChatGPT release last year.
The media has always been slow to notice these things, here's an example from The Register that was late to the party: TV and Film Extras Are Afraid AI Will Copy Their Faces and Bodies To Take Jobs [slashdot.org]
Re:Easy to see the money behind this. (Score:2)
The bill doesn't even mention AI. As far as I can tell it even applies to, say, photoshopped images.
Re:Easy to see the money behind this. (Score:0)
"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."https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/12/23914915/ai-replicas-likeness-law-no-fakes-copyright
FTB:
(1) DIGITAL REPLICA.—The term “digital replica” means a newly-created, computer generated, electronic representation of the image, voice, or visual likeness of an individual that https://www.coons.senate.gov/i... [senate.gov]
So yes it does cover AI.
Re:Easy to see the money behind this. (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:Easy to see the money behind this. (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 public care? Probably not, considering most of what you see an actor doing is all fake anyway - with few exceptions, most actors aren't doing all those stunts and things you see on screen anyway. I will still want to go to live action theatre every now and then though.
I guess the tabloids will be the most unhappy when their bread and butter stories of celebrity shenanigans, dry up.
Re:Easy to see the money behind this. (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 try to hitch their wagons to other elements of the production chain and force the use of actors through contract you are just going to see production more out of Hollywood and go places like Mexico as has already happen with a lot of the "hemorrhoids cream commercial" tier of production already to avoid costs imposed by union labor.
As far as the movie industry goes, I think we see it first in the direct to video / TV movie tier where cheesy effects with obvious visual glitches are already well tolerated. I don't think anyone will care if the mom in this years Hallmark/GAF Christmas special moves her arms a little strangely on occasion. Similarly it wont matter if the surprise on the victims face in the lasted police procedural isnt quite right when the perp shoves them off the bridge, it wasnt right when a human was playing the role.
We will next see this move into action movie and teen space, even if these are big budget things like Marvel movies, how much does it matter who they guy in the suit is, and since its all fantasy physics where people go flying when punched etc, it unnatural movements and impossible arm/finger contortions won't bother most of the audience (well nerds will complain bitterly on Slashdot but that hardly matters to the Studios).
It will probably hit drams with lots of close shot work of the young couple at dinner last, as all these flaws will be most noticed there.
Re:Easy to see the money behind this. (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:Easy to see the money behind this. (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:Easy to see the money behind this. (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:Easy to see the money behind this. (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:still need the union to ban / limit in contract (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 suit.
We’re one generation (perhaps less) away from a future where the up-and-coming actors go unrecognized in public because they wear the skins of others in their films.
Re:still need the union to ban / limit in contract (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:still need the union to ban / limit in contract (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.
Re:still need the union to ban / limit in contract (Score:0)
Re:still need the union to ban / limit in contract (Score:0)
Holy crap! I always thought that was just fiction, e.g. the band leader in The Godfather who was given an Offer He Can't Refuse. That's amazing that now it's happening in real life! Actors being told that if they don't sign, they'll be killed?!? How did we let things get this far?
If AI can replace you (Score:1)
then you deserve to be replaced.
Congress (Score:-1, Flamebait)
Don't want no scrubs (Score:0)
n/m
70 Years? (Score:2)
Re:70 Years? (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:Did "Weird Al" Yankovic have to pay anything? (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:Did "Weird Al" Yankovic have to pay anything? (Score:0)
Unlike Drake crooning out a line from the Pet Shop Boys' West End Girls without so much as an attrib' in the liner notes.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/07... [cnn.com]
Re:Did "Weird Al" Yankovic have to pay anything? (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:Did "Weird Al" Yankovic have to pay anything? (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:Individual artsts may be caught in the crossfir (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:Individual artsts may be caught in the crossfir (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:Individual artsts may be caught in the crossfir (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:Individual artsts may be caught in the crossfir (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:fake vs fake (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 your crap upon. Therefore, those fakes are bad for the actors, and don't help the producers much either (although I guess "Tom Hanks stars in Utter Crap" might get more impulse viewers over what you'd expect with just "Utter Crap").
Of course, if you're making a half decent bit of TV, then you don't need any big, known actors - you just need any old AI people for the job - so long as the training set was half decent acting, you're probably good to go. The story will speak for itself, and you've just made some decent TV with no actors at all - and the AIs don't look or sound like anyone in particular, so no humans have any claim over your work.
The problem then of course becomes the need for a decent story/script etc. There lots of people think AI can help, but it really can't - at least not yet.
It's a golden age of possibility (Score:0)
Drop the over-paid, self-infatuated dimbulbs. Drop in their AGI replacements and let's celebrate top quality production with no conintuity challenges.
The writers were always the real stars.
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:It's not Tom Cruise (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 return. But for the studios paying for rights is cost of doing business. So what do they get? They get rid of indie and upstart competition who have technical skills [or the ability to collectively pay toward a community driven solution] but couldn't afford the royalties of familiar and top talent. I mean if things continued down this road unhindered then one day ANYONE with an idea could be director and producer of media tweaking and tuning in collaboration with AI for practically nothing and produce music and one day feature films of hollywood quality without any of the hollywood staff.
With this bill all the known likenesses will be locked up tight for at least 70 years by the existing and established industry players. In this way they'll remain the premium option even if upstarts begin producing content with characters nobody recognizes and putting it on streaming platforms.
Re:It's not Tom Cruise (Score:1)
I hope that they there will be no such law. This will lead to a chaotic environment, I guess.
Re:It's not Tom Cruise (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 just enough to get away with it legally, then you've jumped into the uncanny valley and creeped people out.
The only time I could see the edge case coming up is some cheap horror film where an uncanny valley not-quite Tom Hanks is actually achieving your desired affect, but that's more an interesting legal case than general chaos.
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 difficult with voice likeness. Let's say the same game creator asked a voice actor to voice an NPC using a voice that sounds a bit more gruff and low-pitched than his usual voice. Unfortunately that fake voice sounds a lot like the real voice of Giuseppe Nessuno, a little-known Italian musician who at some point signed his rights over to Sony or something, who proceed to sue for unauthorized digital replica.
Re:Viodeogame NPCs (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 like.
We have already seen this with musical bridges etc.
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 list, in case you are wondering which party really wants to stop lying to their constituents.
Re:Oh yeah this inspires confidence.. (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:Oh yeah this inspires confidence.. (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 [or few] people deciding all the votes with the people just carrying it to the ballot box for them like good little lemmings.
"Public affairs" is just an obfuscated phrase that means political purposes. It permits fabricating domestic propaganda by government and propagating it via media outlets. For instance to drum up public support for a war, unify behind current political leaders as a way to manipulate elections. A republic in which people are allowed to control the information available to voters and provide them with entirely fabricated evidence from official sources isn't a republic or democracy at all. This is standard practice for one party authoritarian regimes.
This is a much bigger issue than creating digital rights for likenesses so that the entrenched megawealthy studios can maintain dominance rather than face a world where everyone with a plot idea can make a hollywood quality film with fantasy football style casting, writing style, filming style, etc the same afternoon they have the idea and release it for free on youtube/rumble 30mins later. Err... I mean... protecting the artists from the greedy studios that will now make $999M where they would have made $1b and stiffed the already incredibly wealthy superstars!
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.
Stupid (Score:0)
If AI can generate content good enough to be popular then you don't even need likenesses of known actors. You can make your own actors from scratch. Possibly even better than the known actors.
So you create popular actors from scratch. They already do this in countries like Korea where they have famous personalities that are purely digital. They're not based on any existing person but instead made by marketing.
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.