undefined

points

[-]

In Switzerland, where people have the legal right to control whether and how their image may be photographed and published, exemptions are made if the image/person is of public interest. This is decided on a case-by-case basis, so the news org has to be willing to argue this in court.

Let's say, as an example, a married politician having an affair with someone. Generally, news sites will publish photos with the face of the politician visible but would blur the other person. The former is clearly a person of public interest, the latter is not. Even if it's a photo taken in a public space.

by bediger40004 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Interesting concept. Case-by-case basis means that in practice only the rich and corporations have access to their exceptions, analogous to US copyright "fair use", which is on a litigated, case by case basis.

by unaindz4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

In Switzerland and probably most or all EU countries. For example, in Spain, the schools need a signed form allowing each student's picture to be published.

The issue of money gatekeeping legal rights is another issue entirely which should be addressed for everything, not just this specific problem. It's also, in my opinion, a lot more prevalent in the US than the rest of the first world countries.

by sjducb3 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

This isn’t about real photos of things that actually happened. This is about AI generated imagery.

So it’s not a photo of a politician doing something bad. It’s an AI recreation of what they are alleged to have done.

The law does have to be written very carefully.

by rsynnott9 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Would likely fall under fair use or an analogous right in most places. If Coca-cola does something stupid, they do not have the ability to censor depictions of their logo from reporting on it.

by 8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

deleted

by impossiblefork8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Think of that like reproducing a particularly ill-conceived Coca Cola advertisement.

Then, when someone uses their face to promote something, someone else can repeat the face with what it promotes.

So I think the whole thing actually works in this particular case.

by nashashmi7 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

That could come under fair use. Like if you had a coke can on film, you could broadcast it. But you could not apply the coke brand on some other product.

by xboxnolifes9 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

It works the same way as news currently does. You can report on people, but you can't take a picture of someone and use it as your brand's model/logo.

by aqme289 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

But you mostly already couldn't do that, right?

What specific behaviors does this forbid that weren't already forbidden?

by HenryBemis8 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

There is the (helpful to distinguish) 'gap' here. The media org that will report on a politician (for good or bad), will use the politician's 'news-PR-approved-actual-photo-provided-by-the-politician's-PR-team' (the serious one for war-news, the smiling one for the tax-breaks, and so on). They won't deepfake/use midjourney to create a photo of the politician eating an ice-cream while a pigeon is pooping on him (something that Colbert/Kimmel/Meyes/et al would do - clearly as a parody).

But me (not really) on my website (I don't have one) where I trash politicians (I don't) and post a photo of said politician eating poop, that should be 'frowned upon'. (Or worse to shame an ex-gf or a colleague that 'won't yield to my sexual advances').

While reading the article though, I thought of the cases where a paparazzo takes a photo of CelebrityA, then the CelebrityA posts said photo to her Insta (without getting permission from the agency) and the agency sues her. Now (in Denmark) the CelebrityA can sue the paparazzo for taking her photo in the first place (right?). This would protect people from getting uncomfortable photos.