
US Copyright Law – How Does it Work?…
a convesation..THE CONVO
Take a few notes, loads of great info. Transcript below.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a0sY9aLahDUmU9UhF9JkOm4bW7nRQpad/view?usp=drive_link
Okay, so, you know how we were talking about AI and digital replicas? Well, buckle up, because this U. S. Copyright Office report you sent over, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 1, Digital Replicas. It’s a, well, it’s a lot. It really is, yeah. We’re talking about AI that can practically recreate anyone’s voice or face.
And I mean like, Scarily accurate. Right, like that song, Heart on My Sleeve, with the fake Drake and The Weeknd. That blew me away. Totally. And see, that’s what this report is all about. It dives into all the legal quicksand surrounding these AI generated digital replicas. And it’s not just celebrities who need to be worried.
Okay, so wait, say more about that. What kind of legal quicksand? Well, right now, the law is basically playing catch up with this tech. Like, the way you’re protected from someone using your digital likeness, it’s all over the place. It totally varies depending on where you live. No way. Yeah. And get this.
Some states. Zero laws about this. Can you believe that? Whoa. Seriously. So, someone could, like, create a deepfake of me doing something totally embarrassing. And I might have zero legal options. Just because of where I live. Yeah. Unfortunately. That’s wild. And it gets even more complicated. A lot of the current state laws, they only apply If the replica is used for, like, commercial purposes.
Mm hmm. So, if someone uses a deepfake to, like, spread political misinformation or something. Oh, man. Or to create revenge porn, that kind of thing. Yeah. Those harms might not be covered at all. That is seriously messed up. It’s like the law is stuck in the dark ages, while technology is, like, blasting off into the future.
That is a good way to put it. Yeah. And that’s exactly why this report is so important. It’s a huge wake up call, highlighting how vulnerable we all are in this new world of AI. Exactly. Bye. Okay, so what do we do about it? What does the report actually recommend? They’re calling for a brand new federal law.
A federal law. Okay, now we’re talking. That would cover the entire U. S. And they don’t mince words about it. They argue that this law needs to be designed to protect everyone, not just celebrities or people with tons of money. Right, right. Everyone deserves protection from the potential harms of digital replicas.
Period. No, that makes sense to me. It seems like common sense, honestly, but, you know, knowing how the legal world works, sometimes common sense isn’t so common. You’re telling me. So what else? And here’s where it gets really interesting. The report also argues that this law needs to cover both commercial A and D non commercial uses of digital replicas.
Oh, okay. Remember those gaps in protection we talked about? Yeah, yeah. This is about closing those gaps. Making sure everyone is covered, no matter what. Wow, they’re really trying to cover all the bases with this proposed law. But it can’t be easy, right? I mean, trying to balance everyone’s rights while also, like, trying to keep up with technology that’s changing every minute.
You’re right, it is really tricky. And the report knows that. It actually spends a good chunk of time digging into the whole issue of online platforms, like social media. Oh, man. Yeah, that’s a whole other thing. It feels like the Wild West out there sometimes when it comes to online content. Exactly. So the report really grapples with this question of how can we hold these platforms accountable for the spread of these unauthorized replicas without paying for it?
Totally squashing free speech at the same time. Okay. Now that is a tough one. So what’s the brilliant solution for that? Well, they get pretty specific about possible punishments for people who you know, break the rules think like big fines Okay, forcing them to take down the fake content and even potential jail time For the worst offenders.
Whoa, okay. They’re definitely taking this seriously. This is, this report is already giving me a lot to think about. It sounds like there’s even more to unpack here. Like, where do we go from here? Well, it gets even trickier when you start talking about the rights of people after they die. Oh, interesting.
Like, should someone’s family get to control their digital likeness after they’re gone? Yeah. Oh, man. That opens up a whole other can of worms. It does. And the report tackles it head on. So we’re talking about like digitally resurrecting people. This is some serious black mirror stuff. Like, could someone use AI to make a dead celebrity star in a new movie without their family’s permission?
That’s exactly the kind of scenario this report is looking at. It’s a huge debate. On one hand, you have people saying that giving heirs control over a person’s digital likeness after they die, it could prevent Exploitation, you know, protect their legacy, right? Like if someone tried to use a deep fake of Elvis to sell like, I don’t know, diet pills or something that wouldn’t feel right.
Exactly. But then there’s the other side of the coin, right? Some people argue that giving errors too much control could stifle creativity. Okay. And prevent the development of new technologies. They say that after someone dies, their digital likeness shouldn’t be locked down by copyright. It’s like a tug of war between like respecting the past and not holding back the future.
Yeah. It’s a tough one. So where does this report land? Do they think families should have a say or not? They actually recommend against giving heirs lengthy control over digital replicas. They argue that the main focus should be on protecting living artists, preventing, you know, fraud and misinformation and making sure everyone’s digital self is respected.
And in their view, giving families longterm control. It isn’t essential to achieve those goals. Okay, so they’re trying to strike a balance there, but I’m sure that’s not the end of the story. What about people who think heirs should have more say? Oh, for sure. You’re right, it’s definitely a complex issue.
There are strong feelings on both sides. Some argue that even limited control for the family could prevent someone’s image from being used in ways they would have hated. Yeah, it’s a tricky situation for sure. So, moving on from the afterlife of digital replicas, what other legal tangles does the report get into?
Well, it dives into this whole idea of licensing and selling the rights to your own digital replica. Wait. You mean like selling your digital soul to the highest bidder? That sounds kind of intense. It does, doesn’t it? But, the report points out that there’s a potential upside to this. Licensing your digital likeness could give you more control.
Right. And even allow you to profit from it. Okay, I see where they’re going with this. A musician could license their digital replica to perform virtual concerts all over the world without ever leaving their house. Exactly. Or, an actor could license their likeness for a video game, right? Right. But as you can imagine, there are concerns about exploitation here, too.
Oh, yeah. Imagine if someone agreed to have their digital self in, like, anything. And then later on, it’s used in a way they totally regret. Exactly. That’s a huge worry. The report really tries to grapple with this balance. How do you empower individuals while also protecting them from being taken advantage of?
Right, right. So, do they come down hard on one side or the other? They actually recommend against allowing people to completely sell the rights to their digital replica. Okay. Think of it as like, A safety net. Okay. Making sure you never lose complete control over your digital self. Okay. That makes sense.
It’s one thing to say, yeah, use my likeness for this specific project, but it’s another thing entirely to say, do whatever you want with it forever. You got it. They see it as a matter of personal privacy and dignity, something that goes beyond regular copyright law. So it’s almost like your digital self is an extension of your real self, legally speaking.
It seems like they’re trying to create some ground rules for a whole new world. Yeah. Yeah. And they don’t stop there. The report also looks at the very act of creating a digital replica in the first place. Wait. So even just making one, even if you don’t share it, could be a problem? Well, it’s a bit nuanced.
Their main concern is the distribution of unauthorized replicas. Okay. That’s where the real harm happens. Okay. When these replicas are spread around and potentially used to deceive or cause damage. So, if I make a deepfake of myself just for fun and keep it on my computer, I’m probably fine. Most likely, yeah.
Yeah. Especially if it’s for, like, personal use and not for profit. Right. Experimentation and creativity are important, especially in a field like AI that’s changing so rapidly. But as soon as I upload that deepfake to the internet, that’s when things get dicey. Exactly. That’s when you enter a whole different ballgame, where you lose control of how that deepfake is used.
Okay, yeah. I can see how that would be a recipe for disaster. It’s a lot of responsibility. Right. And the report really stresses that difference between, like, private creation and public distribution. They’re drawing a line in the sand. Private use is one thing, but public use is where the alarm bells start going off.
Exactly. And even if some uses are considered harmful and outlawed, The report suggests making exceptions for, you know, legitimate creative uses, like if someone’s experimenting with AI for art or personal projects. Right, because we don’t want to stifle creativity and innovation as long as it’s not hurting anyone.
Exactly. But the report makes it clear that if someone’s intent is to use a deepfake for harm, like in a scam, Then they would still face legal consequences. So using a deepfake to create something illegal is still illegal, even if it’s never shared online. You got it. Intent matters. This whole deepdive into digital replicas is mind blowing.
I can’t believe how much this technology is changing things. It really is incredible. And a little scary. And this report highlights just how far behind our laws are when it comes to dealing with these new challenges. It’s like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, right? The old rules just don’t apply anymore.
So what do we do about it? What do they suggest we do about it? They’re calling for Congress to step up to the plate and create a new federal law, specifically designed to address the unique challenges of AI generated digital replicas. They argue that this is the only way to ensure consistent protection for everyone across the board.
Okay. So let’s get down to brass tacks. What would this new law actually look like? How would it work? The report lays out some key components they think are essential for a strong and effective law. And this is where it gets really interesting. Okay. I’m on the edge of my seat. Lay it on me. First and foremost, they say this new law should make it crystal clear that individuals have the right to control the use of their digital replicas.
Okay. Both their voice and their likeness. No ifs, ands, or buts. So it’s basically saying, this is my digital self and I have the right to decide how it’s used. End of story. Exactly. It’s about giving people control over their digital identity. Just like current laws protect your name and image in the real world.
Makes sense. In today’s world, what happens online is just as important as what happens offline. Absolutely. Yeah. And importantly, this report emphasizes That this right should apply to everyone, not just celebrities or influencers. Everyone deserves equal protection under the law when it comes to their digital selves.
Now that’s what I’m talking about. Equal rights for all in the real world and the digital one. Okay, but let’s say this law is passed and someone violates it. What are the consequences? Do they just get, like, a slap on the wrist? Not at all. The report proposes a whole range of punishments, from, like, preventative measures to serious penalties.
Okay, so they’re playing hardball. Tell me more. For starters, people should be able to get a court order to stop the spread of unauthorized replicas. Okay. Plus, they should be entitled to financial compensation for any damages they suffered. Okay. Whether it’s lost income, harm to their reputation, or emotional distress.
So if someone creates a deepfake that costs me my job or ruins my reputation, they could be held accountable. You bet. And the report doesn’t stop there. They even suggest criminal penalties might be appropriate in certain cases. Wow. They’re serious. Like, what kind of Situations would lead to, like, jail time.
For example, if someone intentionally uses a digital replica to, like, steal someone’s identity, defraud people, or cause serious harm, you know, they could be looking at criminal charges. Okay, that makes sense. I mean, we are talking about a powerful technology that can be used in dangerous ways. I’m glad they’re considering all the options.
Man, this report is giving us a real crash course in, like, the legal side of AI. It is. Yeah. And it gets even more interesting when you bring the First Amendment into the mix. Ah, right. That’s the whole freedom of speech issue. Yeah. I bet that gets complicated. It definitely does. The report emphasizes that any new laws in this area have to be very carefully crafted to avoid, you know, limiting free speech.
Right. We don’t want to create a situation where people can’t express themselves freely or criticize public figures, for example. Right. So, how do they propose walking that tightrope? Because it seems like a very delicate balancing act. They recommend against creating broad exceptions that would, like, automatically exempt certain types of speech.
Instead, they suggest a more nuanced approach, one that allows courts to weigh the specifics of each case. So, it’s not a one size fits all situation. They’re acknowledging that there’s a lot of gray area. Exactly. They argue that context is key. Right. Things like the purpose of the deepfake, how realistic it is, the potential for harm, and whether the creator acted in good faith.
These are all factors that should be considered. It’s like a legal puzzle. It is. But the report believes that this type of framework would give courts the flexibility to make fair decisions based on the unique facts of each case. Instead of just applying a blanket rule to everything. So they’re aiming for a system that’s adaptable and takes all sides into account.
Exactly. And this report doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Right. It acknowledges that a new federal law could clash with existing state laws. Oh, right. Like, what happens when there are two sets of rules? It’s a big debate known as preemption. Okay. And it comes up a lot when we’re talking about, like, federal versus state power.
Right. Some people think a new federal law should override any conflicting state laws. So one set of rules for everyone, no matter where you live. Exactly. They argue that this creates a more predictable legal landscape and prevents a confusing patchwork of different laws across the country. I can definitely see why that would be appealing.
It would be a nightmare trying to keep track of 50 different state laws. You said it. But others worry that a federal law would be too limited. Right. And wouldn’t allow states to address their own, like, specific concerns. They point out that states have a long history of protecting individual rights, and a federal law shouldn’t prevent them from continuing to do so.
So it’s a classic debate about finding the right balance between, like, national consistency and local control? Exactly. Yeah. Ultimately, the report suggests a middle ground. Okay. A minimum level of protection at the federal level. Okay. But with states having the option to create stricter laws if they choose.
That makes sense to me. Everyone has to meet the minimum standard, but states can go above and beyond if they want to. You got it. It’s all about finding a solution that works for everyone. This whole conversation has been eye opening. I had no idea how many legal and ethical issues surrounded digital replicas.
It’s a real can of worms. And we’ve only just scratched the surface. I don’t know. There’s one final layer to this deep dive that I think you’ll find especially fascinating. Oh, you have my attention. Don’t hold out on me now. The report also touches on AI generated content that goes beyond simply mimicking someone’s voice or likeness.
Okay. And delves into the realm of copying an artist’s unique style. Wait, what does that mean? Imagine if AI could create a painting that was practically indistinguishable from a Picasso. You mean like, the AI could study Picasso’s style and then create something totally new, but in his style? Exactly. Or think about AI generating music in the style of Mozart.
Or writing poetry that could pass for, like, Emily Dickinson. Wow. That is wild. But is that even legal? That’s the million dollar question. And you guessed it, the law isn’t totally clear on this yet. This is getting more and more like an episode of Black Mirror every minute. Right. The report brings up a lot of important questions, but doesn’t give us all the answers.
So we’re headed into uncharted legal territory. We are. That’s what makes this so fascinating, right? This technology is forcing us to rethink everything we thought we knew about art, creativity and ownership. So we’re talking about AI that can like steal an artist’s creative DNA and and churn out works.
that are practically indistinguishable from the real deal. It’s like, it’s like having a machine that can just make counterfeit Picassos. Yeah, you got it. That’s the crux of it. And it raises some really profound questions about like, authorship, originality, really the very nature of art itself. I mean, if an AI can learn and replicate an artist’s style so perfectly, what does that even mean for, like, the value of human creativity?
Yeah, that’s a good question. I mean, it’s like, If you can program a machine to paint just like Van Gogh, does that make all the Van Gogh paintings out there less special? It’s a question that, you know, artists, collectors, legal experts, they’re all grappling with right now. And the report really kind of dives into this question of whether, you know, existing laws, like trademark or unfair competition laws, might offer any kind of protection for artists who are worried about this kind of imitation.
So, like, if someone is making a profit off of AI generated art that’s a blatant rip off of a specific artist’s style, could that artist actually sue them? It’s possible. But the legal ground is really shaky. See, trademark law. It’s usually about protecting brands and preventing consumers from being tricked into buying bad stuff.
Like something fake so like you couldn’t say trademark the entire impressionist style Yeah, and then sue anyone who paints in that style exactly and unfair competition laws They usually require proof that someone is like intentionally trying to pass off their work as someone else’s right It’s not enough for the art to just like look similar.
So you’d have to prove that the AI was like Program to copy that artist style with the goal of tricking people. Yeah. Oh, man. That sounds incredibly difficult It would be a tough case to win for yeah, and the report, you know acknowledges this gap in protection Right and suggests that the law may need to like evolve to better address these new challenges posed by AI generated art It’s amazing how quickly this technology is advancing.
It feels like we’re like playing catch up with the law. It’s a brave new world, right? Yeah. And this report is a call to action, urging, you know, lawmakers, artists, and everyone else to really start thinking about these issues before it’s too late. This whole deep dive has been a wild ride. We’ve gone from like the dangers of, you know, realistic deep fakes to the complexities of like, Post mortem rights, and now the very definition of art is being challenged by A.
I. And you know what? It’s all connected. This technology is forcing us to re examine, like, our assumptions about identity, creativity, and what it means to be human in the digital age. This report from the U. S. Copyright Office has been a real eye opener. It’s a reminder that we need to be having these conversations now, and start shaping the rules for A.
I. before it reshapes our world. Well said. And that’s what the deep dive is all about, giving you the information you need to think critically about the world around you. So to our listeners, the next time you see something amazing created by AI, take a moment to think about the big questions. Who really owns that creation?
Could it be infringing on someone’s rights? And what does it mean for the future of art and creativity? These are the conversations we need to be having as we, you know, venture further into the age of artificial intelligence.