• harmonea@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Stuart Fergus, the husband of James Bulger’s mother, said that after he reached out to one creator asking them to take down their video, he received a reply saying: “We do not intend to offend anyone. We only do these videos to make sure incidents will never happen again to anyone. Please continue to support and share my page to spread ­awareness.”

    He really tried to take down his wife’s dead kid’s deepfake and got the creator responding “no offense, so like share and subscribe lel”

    Using the likeness of another person without that person’s express permission should be a jailable offense.

    • FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      They seem to be getting a pass on using copyrighted materials to feed these programs so I am doubting that we would get legislation protecting our own likenesses, or those of our loved ones. I bet you couldn’t even get lawmakers to understand what they would need to write into law. They (american lawmakers) all seem to be so up to speed on technology. /s

      • Otter@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Not until someone starts making clips of lawmakers narrating their own crimes and unethical behavior, then they’ll get it done immediately.

        Not that I’m suggesting anyone do that…

  • duncesplayed@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Anne Frank advertising baby clothes before discussing the horrors of the Holocaust

    Wow, that is amazingly inhumane.

    My first thought is they’re necessarily making characters who aren’t people. A person who has lived through the Holocaust just cannot cheerfully peddle baby clothes. I don’t mean that it’s physically not possible because she’s dead: I mean in terms of the human psyche, a person just flat-out psychologically could not do that. A young boy who succumbed to torture and murder psychology cannot just calmly narrate it.

    So obviously, yeah, it’s quite a ghoulish and evil thing to take what used to be a person, and a figure who has been studied and mourned because of their personhood, because we can relate to them as a person, and just completely strip them of their personhood and turn them into an inhumane object.

    But then that leads to me the question of, who’s watching these things, and why? The article says they got quite a lot of views. Is it just for shock value? I don’t quite understand.