Technology

59422 readers

3035 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

284

Spurred by Teen Girls, States Move to Ban Deepfake Nudes (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 6 months ago by pro_grammer@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world

67 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Sorry my bad, I was speaking to pictures taken in a public setting, but didn't clarify. When you get headshots done you are giving the photographer the rights.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Still negative.

https://legalbeagle.com/8581945-illegal-pictures-people-permission.html

Generally, you can take any photos you want of people when they are in a public location, like a park, a beach or a city square. It's perfectly legal since they have elected to place themselves in a public location and have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If you snap a hundred pictures of people at a political rally, a marathon or a rock concert in the park, all is well and good.

[...]

For example, if you photograph a couple kissing on the beach and publish the photo in the newspaper, they cannot complain. They have no claim against you even if one of the two happens to be married to someone else and the marriage ends because of the photo.

So even though that couple is the direct foreground subject of the image, the photographer is NOT liable for not only taking the picture, publishing the picture, but ALSO any damages the picture caused by being published. This is why the paparazzi are also protected.

In the previous post the photographer has the rights because it's their photo, not because you're giving them any rights.

Edit: Typo

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Taking photos and the right for commercial use of the photos are two different things. The reason why film crews/photographers generally ask for people to sign releases is because it's not clear cut. While the US is generally more forgiving, it's not a guarantee.

More details

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 0 points 6 months ago

Right... So back to the topic discussion rather than adding extra shit... Someone taking pictures and putting it through AI... There's no problem. They own the rights to that photo and all derivative works (except for any cases where it outright violates a law, peeping tom/stalking/etc...). Public figure or not.

After that it can get gray (but I never brought sale or commercial AI use as a thing... Not sure why people assume I did). But it's quite rare where a sold picture cause a photographer problems. Even if the subjects didn't necessarily consent.

Some other countries might have problems with that and have different laws on the books. But at this point in the world it's really not hard to have a shell company in a territory/country that doesn't have such laws... Then it no longer matters again. Good like finding the photographer to sue.