That would work best for advertisements like the above, satire and parodies. And again, provide due compensation.
Using Deepfake in Trek... Yes or no?
- Thread starter Roald
- Start date
That would work best for advertisements like the above, satire and parodies. And again, provide due compensation.
Oh noes, da ebil deep faskes! The whole issue seems ridiculous to me. If I can suspend my disbelief for cartoons or cgi I can suspend it for deep fakes. TAS is one of the worst and people manage to become immersed in them.
I guess you are against makeup and tinted hair as well, then.
my girlfriend had no idea Tarkin was not a real actor and we’re talking about yesterday’s technology now.
that’s what they did with Carrie fisher in the last Star Wars and with the voices of Spock and so on recently on prodigy. The problem is that you need to have performances that match your story or it will come up as very forced.
Yeah. Clowns give me the creeps.
Those are enhancements, not full-blown obliterators of age and time. In reverse, it's funny how "The Deadly Years" got the aging component so wrong. The older versions didn't resemble the true aging of the actors.
But I'm not nitpicking that.
Wow. Proof it can be convincing. Also, it could be abused for manipulating consumers of digital media. I myself was impressed with the Tarkin deboot. Especially the voice.
The use of the images and audio clips does indeed give the impression of a synthesized, dare I say, soul-less performance, since the original content was created under complex and unique conditions that the actors interpreted in direct relation to those. It gives new meaning to the word, "artificial".
Call me extremely distrustful.
I run through that thought process watching any old movie or tv show.
wow, you do realise that a huge portion of us change their appearance every day? And that’s not because we’re clown, but because we want to appear the way we feel more comfortable.Yeah. Clowns give me the creeps.
It’s called fiction. If you have a flashback set 20 years ago your options are either making the actor look younger, recasting, using prerecorded material or do nothing like they did in TATV, which to me looked ridiculous.
well, they did what they could with what they had. When they aged Picard in TNG or Others in other series it looked better, but not necessarily true to their eventual aging.In reverse, it's funny how "The Deadly Years" got the aging component so wrong. The older versions didn't resemble the true aging of the actors.
sure they can. And it’s an issue. Bue it’s not what we’re talking about.
if they used someone’s image without permission they’d be immediately sued and lose a lot of money. They might be untrustworthy, but hardly that stupid.
Yes, they are that stupid. It gets repeated here a lot of how stupid Paramount is, CBS is, etc.
Also, it isn't just using their likeness. It is the lack of the original actor providing information about the performance. There's no choice any more for the original actor to do anything. Their estate signs off, but not artistic choice. That's a real gray area that I have little expectations of them handling it appropriately.
this has never happened so far. And, again, in an organisation with hundreds of people involved it’s pretty unlikely no one to notice what they are doing are illegal.
Your confidence is impressive. You'll forgive me if I don't share it. Overtly illegal doesn't mean they won't remove agency.
It’s not confidence: it has NEVER happened. If you know otherwise please prove it.
Estates of deceased figures are definitely on top of this kind of stuff. Just look at how the estate of Arthur Conan Doyle repeatedly claims that any depiction of Sherlock Holmes displaying the least bit of emotion is derivative of the later works that they still hold copyright on, and not the earlier works that are in public domain.
In the case of deepfakery/CGI/whatever, even if everything is signed off officially with contracts, etc. between the production company, the deceased person's estate, and whoever else might be connected, the whole thing is definitely questionable from a standpoint of artistic integrity and authenticity. Even when close relatives of a deceased artist are involved in a project, there would definitely be times when it's obviously a quick cash grab.
Kor
In the case of deepfakery/CGI/whatever, even if everything is signed off officially with contracts, etc. between the production company, the deceased person's estate, and whoever else might be connected, the whole thing is definitely questionable from a standpoint of artistic integrity and authenticity. Even when close relatives of a deceased artist are involved in a project, there would definitely be times when it's obviously a quick cash grab.
Kor
Last edited:
Neither has deep faking tech until recently.
I don't trust these companies with this tech. Zero confidence in this tech not being abused, or finding loopholes or whatever. I don't trust the tech, I don't truth the people using it. The tech is new, and will be abused.
Trust away; I don't.
Well, copyright law is a complete mess, has been for decades.
the tech exist and will be used. There is literally zero you can do about it. There are laws to prevent certain abuse, but the real risks aren’t in entertainment: this same technology can be used to create fake videos of anyone doing pretty much anything and is already being used maliciously. This is a huge paradigm shift from what we’re used to, as as from now the importance from what you see in a video is much less important than who is telling you about it (and we’ve seen how gullible some people are, believing in stuff with zero evidence and zero logic).
Your reassurances are a comfort as always.
And I'm the odd one who doesn't trust the tech.
At this rate I'd be far more concerned with deepfakes being used as wartime propaganda than whatever happens in coordination with an actor's estate in a sci-fi franchise. It's only a matter of time before we get some head of state's or other politician's face deepfaked onto a filmed crime as justification for war.
That is outside the scope of this thread. Otherwise I would hope I see people calling for deep fake porn being pulled down as illegal too.
I'll wait to see that legal action happen.
you should know well that reassurances and comforting are often no help in upsetting situations.
Exactly.
you don’t have to wait much: it has happened several times over the past few years. And new deep faked porn is being made all the time notwithstanding that, as the technology becomes easier and easier to access and use.
No help indeed.
Hmmm...and so I should believe that this tech won't be abused by using actor's likenesses because...because it's never been done before. Therefore we should absolutely trust in this technology and have no reservations what so ever.
Viva la uncanny valley!
Seriously, with all due respect, I don't trust it. You seemed convinced that my reservations will go away because there are some legal protections but they are not enough. So, why should I trust companies that people are constantly railing against as being untrustworthy to engage in trustworthy behavior with new technology?
Similar threads
