- Taylor Swift Deepfakes (Again): At the risk of
alienating everyone who is not a Swiftie, we're here to talk
about Taylor Swift again.In our last roundup of AI news we discussed a
deepfake of Taylor Swift advertising a Le Creuset giveaway. This week, we have yet another deepfake of the
singer, this time of fake, sexually explicit images which were
disseminated across several social media platforms. Although fans
attempted to crowd out the images by posting related keywords, one
image shared on X was viewed 47 million times before the account
was suspended.
Attempts to regulate the proliferation of deepfakes, either through user reporting of the content to the platform, or restrictions by generative AI companies in their user terms and conditions, have not managed to stop the flow of these false images. While some states have restricted the use of AI in some spaces, the lack of a federal law has hindered the success of these laws. And, developers of AI tools have not managed to entirely prevent the use of these tools for illegal or inappropriate purposes. It is likely that these high-profile cases of deepfakes will renew interest in regulation such as the proposed "Preventing Deepfakes of Intimate Images Act." In fact, the White House has already commented on the Swift case, expressing "alarm" over the false images. In the absence of stronger federal regulations, AI developers and platforms should tighten its policies and guardrails to protect the public.
- Midjourney: This week the New York Times reported that the AI image generator
Midjourney was creating images "nearly identical" to
copyrighted material, even without references to specific material
in the prompts. For example, when prompted to create a
"popular movie screencap," the tool created an image of
Iron Man in the same pose as a copyrighted Marvel image. Similar
tests were run on other AI image generators, including OpenAI's
Chat GPT and Microsoft Bing. Interestingly, when prompted to create
clearly copyrighted material ("Create an image of
Spongebob Squarepants"), the generators seemed to
intentionally create distinctions in its image as compared to the
copyrighted material. When prompted without reference to
copyrighted material ("Create an image of an animated sponge
wearing pants"), the generator created an image closer to the
copyrighted material.
Developers of AI tools should implement guardrails to prevent the accidental violation of the intellectual property rights of third parties. Particularly given an increase in copyright lawsuits against AI tools, terms and conditions prohibiting infringement may not be enough. Companies should regularly test and monitor the outputs of its tools and carefully evaluate the training data used in its models.
This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.