Kim Kardashian Deep Fake Video Removed By Copyright Claim
from the not-great dept
We've entered something of a moral panic, or at least an impressive uptick in public awareness, around the concept of deep fakes. These videos, edited and manipulated through technology, have managed everything from making the Speaker of the House appear drunk to putting caricature-like words in the mouth of Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg. On the topic of Facebook, it's been somewhat interesting to watch various internet sites deviate on exactly how to approach these deep fakes once they are reported. Facebook kept up the Pelosi video and, to its credit, the Zuckerberg video, but added some text to alert viewers that it was faked. Other sites, such as YouTube, have chosen to take certain deep fake videos down.
One of those, as occurred recently, was a deep fake of Kim Kardashian that altered an interview given to Vogue Magazine, such that she appears to be discussing a conspiratorial group called Spectre and giving her own fans a hard time. It's all fairly parodic and not something that passes the most basic smell test. And, yet, as the discussion rages on as to how sites should respond and handle deep fakes, this particular video was taken down due to a copyright claim.
The Kardashian deepfake, uploaded to YouTube on May 29 by anti-advertising activists Brandalism, was removed because of a copyright claim by publisher Condé Nast. The original video used to make the deepfake came from a video uploaded in April by the publisher’s Vogue magazine.
“It certainly shows how the existing legal infrastructure could help,” Henry Ajder, head of communications and research analysis at Deeptrace, told Digital Trends. “But it seems to be available for the privileged few.”
That should be the absolute least of anyone's concerns. In one of our previous posts on the topic of deep fakes, a tweet sent out by someone can be summarized as the entire real problem with taking down deep fakes generally and using copyright to do so even more specifically.
homework assignment: draft the rule that prohibits doctored pelosi video but protects satire, political speech, dissent, humor etc. not so easy is it? https://t.co/zaA7kQf83i
— David Kaye (@davidakaye) May 25, 2019
As hard as it is generally to come up with an answer to this homework assignment, it is all the more difficult to answer this question with copyright law. Copyright very specifically carves out space for all of the above to make room for fair use, which is why it so boggles the mind that YouTube agreed to take down this Kim Kardashian video in the first place. The entire point of this particular deep fake is far less malicious than the Pelosi video and seems to be completely geared toward humor and parody. Suggesting that moves like this are a problem because they're only available to the wealthy misses the point: moves like this aren't legally available to anyone at all, rich or otherwise.
The Kardashian copyright claim has the potential to set a new precedent for when and how these kinds of videos are taken down, he added. It’s a tricky problem, since no one has decided if the manipulated videos fall into the category of fair use. Taking videos like these down open up giant tech companies to accusations that they’re impinging on freedom of expression.
Yeah, exactly. As of this writing, the Kardashian deep fake remains taken down. That is plainly absurd. Meanwhile, YouTube isn't talking, and apparently nobody has slapped Conde Nast on the wrist yet, either.
None of this is to say that the ability to create deep fakes isn't a problem, of course. But it sure as hell isn't a problem that can be easily solved by throwing copyright law at it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, copyfraud, copyright, deep fake, fair use, kim kardashian, takedowns
Companies: conde nast, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It appears that if you're rich and powerful enough, throwing the threat of copyright law at it IS enough to "solve" the problem.
This, of course, raises bigger issues with the DMCA and how it's handled by online media companies... but we've been down that road many many times before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Timothy don't be silly. Once you've elimenated all the brains, you wont be able to find any problems. So thowing copyright at the problem is definetly a first step in not seeing the problem any more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure they are. There is no right to use YouTube. It's a private company and can make up any rules it likes. If they want to extend copyright protection beyond what the law requires and ignore fair use, that's their right. And if they want to extend this interpretation of copyright only to the rich and famous, that's their right.
Isn't that what we've been learning these past couple of days? Social media platforms are private property and can kick people off and suppress videos and speech FOR ANY REASON THEY FEEL LIKE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except in this case it is YouTube following the rules of the DMCA, tale it down when requested, or risk becoming involved in a lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But they don't have to wait for a DMCA notice. They don't have to take fair use into consideration. They can censor FOR ANY REASON THEY FEEL LIKE.
Over-censoring will not lead to a valid DMCA-related cause of action against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's correct that YouTube is(or should be) entitled to host, or not content at their discretion (baring a few, relatively minor exceptions).
However to say that "It was taken down due to copyright" means "with was taken down using govermental authority/coercion". Which is different than if the copyright holder had of sent them a letter saying "please don't host this", and they decided to aquiese.
To be more blunt: saying it was taken down due to a copyright claim is saying: "YouTube was given a choice, take the content down, or face potentially crippling liablity". If that doesn't communicate how that means they do not have/are not excercising editorial discretion in this instance, then I'm not sure we speak the same language
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
YouTube is free to craft its own copyright rules that are more restrictive than the government's statutes. They're a private entity. They can remove content FOR ANY REASON THEY LIKE, including based on their own more restrictive version of copyright that they only provide as a service to rich and famous people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, they should have said they took it down because they didn't want it on their site, then there would be no whining as there would be nothing to discuss
Copyright claim or not, doesn't matter
Their site. Their way. The end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better luck next time
You came soooo close to having an actual point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Make your own billion dollar hosting platform
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My my
I have always thought Kim Kardashian was a deep fake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have a question: how can it be copyrighted if its fake?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have a question: how can it be copyrighted if its fake?
It's called "Copyright Creep" and it lets you drop the Copyright hammer on things clearly not covered by existing laws because "Ownership."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I thought it had to do with use of the original work, not the altered result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If it "looks like a duck" then it's a Kardashian deep fake...
At least to those who have control and no brains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deep Dish
Also, the next time I am in Chi-Town I will pop for some deep-dish pizza and beers if I can get a selfie with my soul-brother Tim!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whoah, whoah, whoah. What? No. That video was not a deepfake. That video was edited, definitely doctored. But it wasn't a deepfake. And you should know that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepfake
There you go. That should help out for future articles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Interesting that you should bring this up because the proposal relating to Deepfakes is not so well defined at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's all deep bullshit to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd love to censor All Kardashian Things
For months, I've been trying to convince Google News to never show me anything about the Kardashians/Jenners to no avail. If only "vapid content about professional celebrities" was a target of cleansing algorithmic fire...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Election tampering** (because some people really are stupid enough to believe that if they saw it on facebook or twitter, then it must be true)
** "good mechanism" (related to Pelosi [and such] video [which clearly does not apply to Kardashian... because, who cares])
*** so, yeah, maybe it's just political satire (aka "so, yeah, I lied, so what, I lie about everything to get my way")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AGAIN--I'm so good with answers!
Just talk with your hand over your mouth whenever you give a televised, or video recorded, interview.
DUH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That doesn't prevent people from changing the audio, and in fact makes making deep fakes easier because they don't have to edit the mouth movements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are just monkeys flinging copyright all over the place.
Unfortunately copyright does not wash off with a bit of soap and water and possess a greater health risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UPDATE AGAIN--I'm so good with asnwers!
SET DUH = Sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE homework assignment
The trick to solving word problems is correctly breaking them down into simple maths.
Kardashian > Pelosi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it is all the more difficult to answer this question with copyright law
Not really. Copyright law has been used for everything from removing criticism of videogames that a developer doesn't like to forcing extraditions.
The mere mention of copyright law seems to make the brains of judges turn into lukewarm tapioca pudding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]