JSample wrote:Fred588 wrote:dlodoski wrote:JSample wrote: ....My concern with using images of real people (even public figures) to create new AI images is that their right to control the use of their own likeness is being usurped, even if the intent is complimentary. I suspect that Kendra or any other model might feel leery about their likeness being used this way without their permission and outside of their control.
That depends on who is doing it. Most model releases specify that the 'photographer' has the right to do whatever he or she wants to do with the images/footage after the fact.
Something like -
...the irrevocable right to use my ... picture, portrait, or photograph in all forms and in all media and in all manners, without any restrictions as to changes or alterations (including but not limited to composite or distorted representations or derivative works made in any medium)....Back in the day, this usually meant basic photographic stuff like cropping and color alterations etc. But it does obviously allow for runs through an AI environment. However, for anyone without a proper model release, there would be potential liability.
Dave is correct that model releases typically have such language. Mine do as well. With the 2024, I plan to alter the release we use so as to say such rights may not be delegated to other parties.
Not being a photographer or producer myself I am unfamiliar with the minutiae and allowable legalities of such model releases. I'm speaking more from an awareness of how AI can be used and abused in ways that were not possible until only recently. For example, if a model's legally released image is run through AI processing but then further adaptations are made from the processed image and not the original, does the model's original release cover what is being produced beyond what she or he agreed to? What legal protections would the model have against these later, potentially photo-realistic images being used to present him or her in a negative light?
To me, AI seems like a wild, wild west of potential abuse that could cause genuine harm to people while the law struggles to keep up with something moving far faster than legislative processes can. Something can be legally allowable while also not being morally or ethically right.
First, i am not a lawyer. My understanding is that anything creative that one makes use of, that was created by someone else, violates the original creator's copyright, with certain narrowly defined exceptions. That is about the copyright, however, not about the model's rights. I THINK (but am not certain) that the model has additional rights related to privacy, protection of the ability to make a living, and so on. The model release gives the videographer (photographer, painter, sculptor, etc) authorization to do certain things. It does not matter how many layers of processing take place, except perhaps when the original source becomes unrecognizable. Something like a pose is something anyone can do and is not unique to the specific model.
Some of the exception mentioned above are things such as making a spoof or parody, using very small parts of a work for an academic purpose or in a review, and even then the original source MUST be properly cited (acknowledged). Failing to properly cite is basically negligence if accidental and not flagrant, but is called plagiarism otherwise.
Perhaps there are some lawyers in the group who will correct any errors here.
