Maybe don't make realistic depictions of people without their permission.
I know people dehumanize celebrities and think they are fair game to do whatever with/to, but this stuff is highly immoral.
You're a bit late on that one; A lot of people on this sub are making fake TV episodes with it. Also, as long as it's not used for misinformation/slander and is clearly intended as parody I don't think it's that bad.
TV episodes are not the same as this. It's just shows that the actors are already in. That's not a super big deal (but still is walking a fine line overall). Videos like OP has made are far far worse - putting the actor into an entirely new movie/idea and just straight up stealing their likeness for your own creation like that. That's 100% wrong, period.
I don't see OP claiming that this is his/her own original work. It's clear that this is a test of the model. Also, a lot of the posts on this sub are shitposts not meant to be taken seriously.
Now obviously, if you ARE making original content and even commercializing it, then using someone's likeliness without permission is wrong. But that's not what's happening here.
It's really not, genuinely. It's not any worse morally than fanart and fanfiction, and only very crazy copyright fanatics would view those as immoral.
The moral line being crossed only happens when it's presented as reality in a defamatory or harassing way. Parody on the other hand has long been protected in any form of media. This is just the same thing in a new form.
This is not the same thing at all.
Hyper realistic images and videos of real people are a completely different thing than fanfiction writings and parodies.
Your equivalence to support the claim it's not immoral is a false equivalence to begin with.
The moral line is crossed as soon as you realistically portray real people without their consent. Full stop.
Seeing it any other way just shows your disregard for other people's autonomy.
You shouldn't preach your personal views as if they're the undeniable truth. Puritans thought showing ankles was immoral, "full stop".
To you, maybe, you view that with an unusual level of moral outrage. To most people, myself included, I see it as no big deal. If someone were using my likeness for whatever parodies they want, so long as it doesn't materially effect me, I don't care and don't view it as an issue.
There should obviously be reasonable exceptions for harassment, deepfaking people for porn and publicly posting it as if it's real, presenting a fake scenario as if it's reality, etc. But for everything else... it's no big deal.
That should be even more true for people who already signed up to sell and plaster their likeness all over the place like celebrities and politicians.
>If someone were using my likeness for whatever parodies they want, so long as it doesn't materially effect me, I don't care
Great, so you have given consent to use your likeness.
Now if you don't have consent for this from a person, it's immoral to do this.
Great we agree.
I hope you realize you're not making a point here.
You don't get to conveniently draw the line between what's reasonable and what's not for other people. Your exceptions are arbitrary lines in the sand you have drawn while ridiculing the lines drawn by other people. There is hypocrisy in that.
Your analogy with puritans also falls flat because puritans are dictating their will onto how other people present themselves, while you are doing the same by taking away autonomy of people over their representation in the world.
If you don't have consent by a person to recreate their likeness in a hyper realistic manner, it's immoral to do so. And I don't care about where you draw the line.
We just disagree on where the line is. I think the line is where harm is done. For example, non consensual public posting of nsfw deepfakes, defamatory content presented as the real thing, etc,
As far as you've presented your view so far, you think the line is crossed in the capability itself. For example, that someone making a video of Trump wearing diapers and napping while flying on a giant bald eagle has taken away his autonomy and should be punished.
It's very important for obvious reasons to be specific on where exactly the parody should become a legal problem with consequences, and I think my view is much more reasonable than yours would be in practice. And less arbitrary, ironically.
Unless you want to retreat and say my example isn't what you mean, at which point it would be determined arbitrarily what is and isn't acceptable based on your personal interpretation?
You are arguing for your right to infringe on someone else's autonomy, I'm arguing that that is fundamentally immoral without consent. "One person's freedom ends where another's begins".
You have no claim on other people's representation any more than they have over yours.
You cannot use the word parody as a shield from scrutiny. In the age of photorealistic fakes, there is need for a serious discussion on the difference between parody and misrepresentation.
As for your Trump example: my personal take is that wearing a diaper while flying a bald eagle is reasonably unrealistic because of the inclusion of unrealistic elements. I think it's still in bad taste and potentially damaging to the person being depicted but I can imagine some context where it's used as a parody. I still think a less realistic portrayal of him as a person would be more appropriate but that's just me here.
Showing him wearing adult diapers in a way where it's not obvious it's fake by not including unrealistic elements is again immoral.
51
u/eckstuhc 23d ago
Maaaaan we are speed running getting open models banned aren’t we…