False information, art or copyrighted content: how social networks relate to Deepfake

There are many deeppfake v, but social networks do not know what to do with them. The videos made using neural networks are still outside the legal field.

DeepFake technology is getting better and more affordable. Since late May, three videos have gained popularity in social networks: in one “drunk” speaker from the Democrats stumbled in speech, in the other “Zuckerberg” spoke about Instagram’s power, and in the third “Kardashian” grinned at heaters. Users do not always understand that they are faced with a fake, and Donald Trump even led to one of the commercials.

There is no legally relevant response to how to deal with the problem. Therefore, social networks in which dipfeiky are distributed, react to them in different ways: some remove the videos, others reduce their coverage, others do nothing. The rightholders invented an interesting, but vulnerable method of struggle – they demand copyright protection. At the same time, the creators of dipfeikov claim that they make art.

The threat of spreading false information

At the end of May, Donald Trump published a video clip with Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, in which she looked drunk. The speed of the video was reduced by 25% compared to the original, and the voice is changed so that it seems as if she constantly stumbles in speech. These videos are called “chip fiches” because the video only changes a little without using artificial intelligence.

The video, published in the Politics WatchDog group on Facebook, gained thousands of views and was distributed on other social networks. It was removed on YouTube, Twitter didn’t respond, and Facebook representatives refused to hide it: instead, users who wanted to share the video received a notification that it was fake. The priority of publication was also lowered: it began to appear less often in tapes.

May 28 Facebook director of public policy Neil Potts (Neil Potts) on the question of whether the social network would remove dipfeyk with Mark Zuckerberg, said that the movie would have left.

After Pelosi’s diploma appeared on the network, the US Congress launched aninvestigation and stated that such videos could cause irreparable damage to the 2020 elections. At the meeting, senators were looking for ways to change the laws and methods that platforms should use to solve the problem. Experts offered options ranging from tagging videos as fake ones and removing them from platforms, ending with shifting the responsibility for publishing them to the social network itself. Senators did not come to a common opinion.

Deepfake is an art

On June 7, Canny advertising agency, together with artists Bill Posters and Daniel Howe, published the diploma of Mark Zuckerberg. In the video, the founder of Facebook is sitting at the table and talks about the unlimited power of the social network, and under it are captions “We are increasing the transparency of advertising” with the logo of the CBSN channel, which makes the video leave a feeling of news. In the original video, Zuckerberg talked about Russia’s interference in the American election through Facebook.

“Imagine that for a second. One man has full control over the stolen information about millions of people. All their secrets, all life, the future. I have this thanks to Specter [a vulnerability in processors that allows access to personal data]. Specter showed me that the one who controls the information controls the future. ”

Facebook partners, who are engaged in the fact-checking, paid attention to the video, after which the company reduced the distribution of the deepfake on its platforms. The social network attracts external partners who study the information for inaccuracy. According to their reports, Facebook can reduce the coverage of publications or delete them.

However, the video with Zuckerberg does not aim to spread false information: he criticizes the head of a technology company that controls the personal data of users. Bill Posters told Vice that he was “deeply concerned” by Facebook’s decision to reduce the coverage of his work on the social network. He argues that this is a dangerous precedent for other artists who criticize power. On June 13, the author published another Zuckerberg diplomatic report as a protest against the company’s decision. He also owns work with Morgan Freeman , Donald Trump and Marina Abramovich .

How can we seriously talk about incredibly important issues if we cannot use our art to criticize tech corporations?Bill postersdipface maker

Professor of Law at the University of Maryland agreed with the Posters argument: “The value of fakes can be great. They can contribute to art. For example, thanks to diplomacy, Carrie Fisher returned to Star Wars. Everything depends on the context, we cannot come up with one rule for all artificial videos. ”

At the same time, a representative of Lead Stories – one of Facebook partners who are engaged in verifying the facts – said that he had marked the video as satire. Because of this, the roller coverage should not have decreased. At the same time, Instagram did not remove the dipface from the hashtags and the “Interesting” page.

“Unlike the video from Pelosi, context is important here. This publication is part of an art project with a social message, ”said a representative of Lead Stories. He said that if such a context is clear from the publication, the videos are not removed, but noted as a satire: “This is an important part of public discussion, and the creators did not hide that this is a dipface.”

Rightholders have come up with a way to deal with dipfacekami

On June 1, the same group of artists who made the video with Zuckerberg created Diplomac Kim Kardashian. In the video, the model “told” about the power of social networks over their users and their haters, which made a fortune.

“There are so many haters around which I don’t care, because their information allowed me to make a fortune I couldn’t dream of. My decision to believe Specter literally gave me my ratings and my fanbase. I am happy because I truly love to manipulate people on the Internet for money. ”

Deepface Kardashian was created using images from the Vogue video “73 issues with Kim Kardashian West”, published in April 2019. The original video lasts 11 minutes, but for the deepfake they used the minute scene from the interview.

While the video with Zuckerberg spawned a conversation about the line between art and false information, the diplomatic version of Kardashian was simply deleted at the request of the copyright owner Condé Nast, who created the original video. The video was removed from YouTube, but left on Instagram. “We thought our work was copyrighted by the United Kingdom, but the video was blocked all over the world,” said Posters. Condé Nast declined to comment on the removal of the video.

The problem with the claim of copyright infringement is that the authors of dipfeika did not just perezalili movie Vogue. They intentionally changed the video to make a political statement. In the Anglo-Saxon system of law, the change of the original content is regarded as fair use. This concept includes parodies, criticism, news reports, use for educational and research purposes. The fair use concept also applies when only a part of the entire work is used.

Analyst Joe Mullin (Joe Mullin) from the human rights organization Electronic Frontier Foundation believes that the founders of dipfeik have a good counter-argument: “They use only a small part of the original and turn it into something new. Unfortunately, rightholders forget about the concept of fair use before sending claims that violate the right to free speech. ”

When porn dipfiki with the image of the faces of actresses gained popularity, celebrities sought to remove such commercials. Likewise, Kardashian could use the “right of publicity”, which protects the image of celebrities from unlawful use. “When people want to get rid of content in social networks, because they do not agree with his promise, then the requirements for the protection of copyright are not an option,” said Mullin.

A copyright protection claim may be abused by corporations that have the power, ”said Condé Nast, Posters says:“ It doesn’t matter whether YouTube or video consider video generated by the neural network to be art. The question is, what happens to modern art when it is published in social networks? It is assumed that these public spaces should protect freedom of speech, but in reality everything turns out differently. ”

Back to top button