interestingasfuck

8010 readers

10 users here now

interestingasfuck

founded 2 years ago

1234

why aren't we funding this.... (feddit.org)

submitted 3 days ago by NichEherVielleicht@feddit.org to c/interestingasfuck@lemmy.world

117 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sounds like this is not true as written.

A copyright does not attach to a natural thing. It attaches to an original expression of a human author fixed in a tangible medium.

A photo or a painting of a face can have copyright protection, a face cannot.
A recording or mix including a voice can have copyright protection, a voice cannot.

[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 2 days ago

I found something more informative over here:

With the new s. 73 a, a proposal is made to introduce a ban on deepfakes of natural persons' personal, physical characteristics. Personal, physical characteristics are to be understood as the traits and features that define a person and are unique to the individual, such as appearance, voice, movements, etc.

What is special about the proposed provision is that, unlike other provisions of the Copyright Act, it does not require the existence of a copyright-protected "work" or "performance", but the protection rather covers all natural persons. This applies regardless of whether they are artists or creators in the legal sense.

Thus, the protection comprises the unique characteristics of individuals, which are closely linked to one's person. For this reason, it is also proposed that consent to public disclosure must be given individually, and the area cannot be covered by a collective licence agreement.

The ban only applies to the public disclosure of deepfakes, meaning that there is nothing preventing deepfakes from being made available within the private sphere – such as at a private party or in relation to the right of reproduction.