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.

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.

Filed Under: censorship, copyfraud, copyright, deep fake, fair use, kim kardashian, takedowns
Companies: conde nast, youtube

Attention Kim Kardashian: You Can't Sue Another Woman For Having A Big Ass And An Instagram Account

from the butt-why? dept

Let's pretend for a moment that for-some-reason-a-celebrity Kim Kardashian reads Techdirt. Someone needs to let her know that lawsuits and lawyers are not for temper tantrums over threats to your own celebrity. I'd have thought she'd have previously learned this lesson after Old Navy staved off the lawsuit she filed because the clothing company had the gall to hire a brunette woman for one of their commercials. It would appear not, now that she's reportedly investigating whether or not she can sue a woman named Jen Selter for "copying" Kim's poses (bwah?) and having a big ass.

Selter has been posting photographs of her large buttocks on Instagram, an activity Kardashian apparently feels is an unacceptable infringement upon her very raison d’etre: one of the gangplanks of Kim Kardashian’s global celebrity being her nonpareil ability to take photographs of her own large buttocks with a cameraphone. “Kim thinks Jen copies all her poses … she is fuming as she feels her curvy bum is one of her most unique selling points and feels that Jen is just trying to cash in.”

After, ahem, extensive research, I can assure you that there is very little in these poses that is either unique or identifiable as being Kardashian-esque, beyond the camera's fixation on the subject's posterior. This isn't a "Blue Steel" Zoolander thing, it's a series of pictures that feature an attractive woman with a particular physical asset. What appears to be upsetting Kardashian, according to the post, is that Selter has been winning modeling and endorsement gigs.

“Insiders say Kim has sought legal advice to see if they can stop Jen,” it read, raising the very real possibility that, somewhere in California, a crack team of lawyers may at this very moment be working around the clock to copyright buttocks on behalf of Kim Kardashian.

It likely wouldn't be copyright that would come into play, but possibly some combination of publicity rights and/or trademark (trying to think like a really bad lawyer would is not that easy). But so what? It isn't a violation of trademark or publicity rights to simply naturally look in some way similar to another person, and there is absolutely no attempt in these pictures at a depiction of anything to do with any Kardashian anywhere. This reeks of the Old Navy case all over again, except the "look alike" looks even less "alike," and you can expect any legal action from Kardashian to be similarly fruitless.

Filed Under: copying, copyright, jen selter, kim kardashian, lawsuits, poses, publicity rights, trademark

Kim Kardashian & Old Navy Settle Lawsuit Over Look-A-Like

from the aggressive-discovery dept

Almost exactly a year ago today, I had the displeasure of doing something I said I'd never do: discussing Kim Kardashian. At that time, this (snicker) celebrity, best known for being equal parts pin-cushion and friend-of-Paris-Hilton, sued Old Navy because a young lady named Melissa Molinaro happened to look a bit like her. For this, Kim decided she needed the reasonable sum of $20 Million for Old Navy's infringement of her publicity rights. You can see the supposedly offending video below. I noted at the time that beyond looking somewhat similar to Kardashian, there didn't appear to be much else in common between the celebrity and the woman in the commercial.

How does just hiring someone that looks like someone else require a lawsuit? At no point when I braved my way through watching the commercial did I think to myself, "Oh, that's totally something Kim Kardashian would have done". I mean, if the commercial showed the actress, oh I don't know, waving the Armenian flag, that would've been one thing. And perhaps if the commercial showed her videotaping herself being nailed by a mildly talented R&B singer, I would have inferred the reference. But the casting call for the commercial didn't even call for a Kim look-a-like! The actress, Melissa Molinaro, told E! Online that her casting call had been "for a true dance pop superstar."

Well, those questions may go unanswered now, as we learn that the two parties have settled the case. It would be very easy to assume that, with a settlement, Old Navy didn't feel as though they were in the clear enough to fight this all the way through. However, a couple of things are to be noted in this settlement.

First, as with many settlements, the terms have not been publicized. No dollar amounts have been discussed at all. So, when it comes to monetary settlement figures, we know exactly nothing. Or, more precisely, we know that Old Navy paid Kardashian somewhere between zero and twenty million dollars. The linked article suggests that the commercial has been pulled from YouTube, which doesn't seem to be the case since the embedded example above works as of the time of this writing. It looks like a whole lot of nothing, as far as I can verify.

Second, while the article doesn't indicate which party engaged to reach a settlement first, there is some interesting information of the full-court press Old Navy was preparing to unleash on Kardashian in court.

After the lawsuit was filed, attorneys for Old Navy parent The Gap were aggressive in the discovery phase, launching an investigation to see whether Kardashian's reputation has been tarnished.

Around the time the Old Navy commercial was cast, Molinaro reportedly was dating one of Kardashian's ex-boyfriends, football star Reggie Bush, who was one of the people The Gap wanted to depose. The Gap also had sought information about why the clothing retailer Bebe decided to drop its Kardashian clothing line, financial records concerning Kardashian's clothing deals and further information about "Kim Kardashian's reputation as a singer and dancer."

It sounds as though Old Navy (The Gap) was going to drag a bunch of Kardashian's personal life into the court room. This may strike some as vindictive, but I'd suggest that there was simply no getting around this. If The Gap wanted to investigate the impact of an alleged publicity rights violation had on someone who has made a name for themselves almost purely through exploiting their personal life (as is the case with Kardashian), that will inevitably drag that personal life into the courtroom.

So, while there are no details on the settlement terms at this point, the coupling of a weak case by Kardashian with what would have assuredly been an uncomfortable witness list put together by The Gap, makes it very easy to imagine Kardashian wanting the whole thing to go away quickly. And if that acts as a deterrent to future lawsuits over so-called publicity rights, that's a good thing.

Filed Under: commercial, kim kardashian, melissa molinaro, publicity rights
Companies: gap, old navy

Kim Kardashian Sues Old Navy For Hiring Actress Who Looks Like Her

from the big-ass-infringement dept

Kim Kardashian doesn't get written about much on Techdirt because she's not relevant in the world of...well, in the world, really.  But you may remember her being discussed back when she was upset that some cookie-diet company was featuring news stories suggesting she liked their product on their website.  Now we have a story in the LA Times, sent in by John MacMullen, detailing her new lawsuit against Old Navy for infringing on her publicity rights...or something.

We've been hearing more about these publicity rights being tossed around lately, but that doesn't mean they're new.  Fortunately for us, at least these types of cases tend to be entertaining in their ridiculousness.  Perhaps you've heard the case involving Vanna White and the company that got sued for having a blonde-haired robot that dared to turn letters?  Or the one where Johnny Carson sued Here's Johnny Portable Toilets Inc. because he used the tagline "the world's most famous commodian" on The Tonight Show?  Well, I don't know if Kim can top that, but let's take a look.

Apparently Old Navy hired an actress that looks like Kim and featured her in a television ad campaign.  If you're waiting for a follow up including some kind of long list of Kardashian-related things the actress did in the video or some kind of hinting that Old Navy themselves did to suggest something related to Kim, there isn't any.  She just looks like Kim Kardashian, which apparently is enough to sue over.  You can see the commercial for yourself below (make sure you have a barf bag handy):

So I have a couple of questions. 

First: How does just hiring someone that looks like someone else require a lawsuit?  At no point when I braved my way through watching the commercial did I think to myself, "Oh, that's totally something Kim Kardashian would have done".  I mean, if the commercial showed the actress, oh I don't know, waving the Armenian flag, that would've been one thing.  And perhaps if the commercial showed her videotaping herself being nailed by a mildly talented R&B singer, I would have inferred the reference.  But the casting call for the commercial didn't even call for a Kim look-a-like!  The actress, Melissa Molinaro, told E! Online that her casting call had been "for a true dance pop superstar."

Second: At what point does this work the other way around?  Molinaro said in relation to this story:

"Thank God I booked this commercial because I've gotten so much airtime."

What if, as a result of this thing, she becomes famous?  Like, really famous?  Say, more famous than Kim Kardashian?  Does that mean Kim can't ever do an ad campaign again, because Molinaro will immediately file suit?

 

Filed Under: kim kardashian, melissa molinaro, publicity rights
Companies: old navy

A Case That Has It All: Kim Kardashian, Twitter, Libel, Cookie Diets... And The New FTC Sponsorship Rules

from the i-want-a-cookie dept

Oh boy. Here's a fun one. You had to expect that there would be more defamation lawsuits about Twitter following the first one involving Courtney Love, but this one is quite impressive, considering of all the twists and turns that must be followed. It involves some company promoting something called "The Cookie Diet" (which appears to be exactly what you would think) suing Kim Kardashian for libel. If you don't keep up with pop culture, Kim Kardashian is one of those people famous for being famous. The details of the lawsuit, though, are somewhat complex, and it's difficult to figure out who to side with in this trainwreck in progress (and, yes, it seems pretty likely that the whole thing is a publicity stunt for all involved, but that doesn't mean it's not worth covering).

So, basically, the story is that this "cookie diet" supposedly has some fans in Hollywood, and a variety of media have covered the story. Some of those media reports claimed that Kardashian (among many others) were fans of the diet. The Cookie Diet people -- like you would expect -- have a page on their website that links to news coverage, including a story (which they had nothing to do with) that said Kardashian used the diet. At some point, they also sent Kardashian's publicist a box of the cookies.

At some point towards the end of last year, Kardashian saw the link on the website and got upset, posting two Twitter messages saying the following:

• "Dr. Siegal's Cookie Diet is falsely promoting that I'm on this diet. NOT TRUE! I would never do this unhealthy diet! I do QuickTrim!"
• If this Dr. Siegal is lying about me being on this diet, what else are they lying about? Not cool!"

After that, her lawyers sent the Cookie Diet people a letter demanding that it remove the link to the story. It's unclear on what legal grounds the demand was made, as the diet company insists it had nothing to do with the story, did not supply the information and, in fact, had no knowledge that Kardashian had tried the diet. However, they did remove the link. It was only then that they noticed the Twitter messages and... then we get the lawsuit.

OK. So far we've already got some confusion about whether a link to a news article is actionable, combined with a Twitter libel claim. But then the story gets even more bizarre. You see, there's been a lot of talk lately about Kardashian being the most high profile client of some company that gets people to post sponsored Twitter messages. In fact, reports claim that some companies are paying her $10,000 per sponsored message. This may or may not be true, but if it is true, then the companies paying that money are likely getting seriously ripped off because they don't understand how Twitter works and how follower counts are grossly inflated.

So, what does this have to do with the cookies? Well, the cookie people are noting in the legal filing that Kardashian is paid to promote QuickTrim, but that she failed to note this. How does that become important? Well... you may recall last year's kerfuffle over the new FTC "guidelines" about paid endorsements online. While the cookie people don't specifically bring this up, it's certainly implied that Kardashian's paid sponsorship had something to do with her messages against the cookie people.

It's hard to see either side as being worth defending here, but sit back, grab a cookie and enjoy watching the legal arguments fly.

Filed Under: cookies, diets, disclosure, kim kardashian, libel, sponsorships, twitter