Difference between revisions of "Spoofing in Media"

From SI410
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 42: Line 42:
  
 
In 2002, courts ruled that <em>Aqua's</em> song was protected by the first amendment right to free speech<ref>“MATTEL INC v. MCA RECORDS INC (2002).” 2002. Findlaw. July 24, 2002. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1260576.html</ref>. While Mattel did bring up points of contention that the courts agreed with, it was not enough to trump the first amendment protections. The relationship between trademark protections and first amendment rights is a complicated one, but there do exist general guidelines for the idea of fair use. Some of these guidelines are even ported from the "fair use" doctrine of copyright law<ref>Shaughnessy, Robert J. “Trademark Parody: A Fair Use and First Amendment Analysis.” Virginia Law Review 72, no. 6 (1986): 1079–1117. https://doi.org/10.2307/1072979</ref>. The general guidelines go that a work of parody or satire is protected so long as the parodied work is not intended for commercial use and its existence clearly will not create confusion<ref>Dengel, Carlianna. 2022. “Can Someone Use Your Trademark without Permission?” Romano Law. October 24, 2022. https://www.romanolaw.com/2022/10/24/can-someone-use-your-trademark-without-permission-under-the-fair-use-doctrine/</ref>.
 
In 2002, courts ruled that <em>Aqua's</em> song was protected by the first amendment right to free speech<ref>“MATTEL INC v. MCA RECORDS INC (2002).” 2002. Findlaw. July 24, 2002. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1260576.html</ref>. While Mattel did bring up points of contention that the courts agreed with, it was not enough to trump the first amendment protections. The relationship between trademark protections and first amendment rights is a complicated one, but there do exist general guidelines for the idea of fair use. Some of these guidelines are even ported from the "fair use" doctrine of copyright law<ref>Shaughnessy, Robert J. “Trademark Parody: A Fair Use and First Amendment Analysis.” Virginia Law Review 72, no. 6 (1986): 1079–1117. https://doi.org/10.2307/1072979</ref>. The general guidelines go that a work of parody or satire is protected so long as the parodied work is not intended for commercial use and its existence clearly will not create confusion<ref>Dengel, Carlianna. 2022. “Can Someone Use Your Trademark without Permission?” Romano Law. October 24, 2022. https://www.romanolaw.com/2022/10/24/can-someone-use-your-trademark-without-permission-under-the-fair-use-doctrine/</ref>.
 +
 +
===Right of Publicity===
 +
 +
Trademark law isn't applicable in every situation of spoof, however. In the case of Corridor Digital's video about Keanu Reeves, no brand is being mimicked or imitated. Instead, a real person's likeness is being used in a work of art. This situation would fall under an individual's right of publicity, which was introduced to prevent the unauthorized use of an individual's name, likeness, or recognizable attributes of their persona<ref>“Publicity.” 2020. LII / Legal Information Institute. 2020. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/publicity</ref>.
 +
 +
While, again, no litigation was taken for or against Keanu Reeves or Corridor Digital, legal precedence exists for both parties. The likeness of Keanu Reeves as well as his name is used throughout the video. In addition, certain aspects of his persona were mimicked as the main point of parodied emphasis in the video. This primarily manifests as Reeves' reception in pop culture as an extraordinarily kind individual<ref>Fry, Naomi. 2019. “Keanu Reeves Is Too Good for This World.” The New Yorker. 2019. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/keanu-reeves-is-too-good-for-this-world</ref>. It could be argued that this satisfies the legal precedence required for a violation of an individual's right to publicity.
 +
 +
However, opposers might argue that Corridor Digital's use of Reeves' likeness does not satisfy the requirement that the use of an individual's likeness be for commercial purposes. The right to publicity only reaches commercial use<ref>Barnett, Stephen R. “FIRST AMENDMENT LIMITS ON THE RIGHT OF PUBLICITY.” Tort & Insurance Law Journal 30, no. 3 (1995): 635–62. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25762506</ref>. Commercial use would require that any violating work be in the category of advertising, merchandise, promoting, or selling<ref>Barnett, Stephen R. “FIRST AMENDMENT LIMITS ON THE RIGHT OF PUBLICITY.” Tort & Insurance Law Journal 30, no. 3 (1995): 635–62. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25762506</ref>.
  
 
==Ethical Considerations of Spoofs==
 
==Ethical Considerations of Spoofs==

Revision as of 23:50, 10 February 2023

Spoofing is defined as the imitation of something while exaggerating features for comic effect. In the context of the internet, spoofing in general media takes many forms. Due to the nature of spoofs in media to imitate reality, and the availability of technology such as visual effects software or deepfake technology, various ethical concerns have been raised regarding realistic spoofs in media.

Corridor's CGI Military Robot[1]

Examples of Spoofs

Spoofs in media have taken many forms. While in the field of art, spoofing has taken on the characteristics of imitation in order to make an assertion about a broader genre, spoofing in technology has many more implications. In the cybersecurity world, attackers will imitate trusted brands or contacts to extract personal information from internet users[2]. In the field of AI, deepfake technology is making it possible to take on the identity of another real person or make an entirely new person--completely undetectable as a fake[3].

Military Robots

On October 6, 2019, YouTube creator Corridor Digital posted a video titled New Robot Makes Soldiers Obsolete (Corridor Digital). In the video, a CGI humanoid robot completes various military tasks, such as target shooting, movement drills, and shoot-or-don’t-shoot scenarios while unidentified human agents attempt to inhibit it. As the robot fires weapons at targets, the agents strike it with a hockey stick, throw balls at it, and push it over multiple times. In one drill, a human agent commits multiple acts of violence against the bot while the bot holds a pistol aimed at the agent. In another, the robot must complete a target identification drill in which two identically dressed figures (one a mannequin, the other a human agent) stand side-by-side wearing bags over their heads. The robot successfully identifies the mannequin and shoots it.

Throughout the entire video, the robot is able to successfully complete the tasks, shooting all targets with near-perfect accuracy using an array of weapons, and not harming a single human agent. However, at multiple points in the video, the robot displays behavior outside of what appears to be its intended functionality. At one point, the robot flips a table.

The robot’s successful task completion does not persist to the end of the video. In the last task shown, the robot is given a weapon and commanded to shoot a robot canine. The robot attempts to resist this order multiple times by walking away, but the human agents use physical force to refocus it on the task. Eventually, after multiple strikes, the robot fights back against the human agents: shoving them, discharging the weapon at their feet, taking the canine bot, and fleeing.

Labeled on the robot itself and multiple other objects in the video, as well as watermarked on the video is the name Bosstown Dynamics, a parody company of the real company Boston Dynamics. The human agents all wear realistic field attire and badges and behave realistically. All added VFX in the video, including the robot itself, the robot canine, and all weapons/weapon firing are extremely realistic in appearance. At no point in the video is it indicated that the video is a spoof.

The only indication provided that the video is a work of art rather than reality is a disclaimer in the video’s description: “This video is a comedic parody and is not owned, endorsed, created by, or associated with the Boston Dynamics company.”

The video now has over 85 million views on YouTube, and has been shared across multiple other platforms. Notable shares have been seen on platforms Instagram and TikTok, in which posters pass on the content as real, misleading viewers [4].

This element of deception raises a flag for ethical concerns as mass deception, especially in the context of the military or violent creations, can lead to mass panic. (Source pending).

Keanu Reeves Stops a Robbery

In another YouTube video titled Keanu Reeves Stops A ROBBERY! uploaded by Corridor, uploaded July 13, 2019, actor Keanu Reeves stops a robbery at a convenience store as two bystanders film his heroic actions. Reeves steps in when a perpetrator reveals a gun and attempts to rob the store.

When the police approach, Reeves offers his car as a getaway vehicle to the robber. When the robber takes one of the bystanders hostage, Reeves instead insists on being the hostage himself. The robber eventually shoots and injures a responding police officer, prompting Reeves to kill him.

At the end of the video, it is revealed that the robber was staged, and that all participants in the video were acting. It is not revealed in the video, however, that Keanu Reeves was never in the store for filming. A line in the video description reads: “This video was created using Deepfake technology. If the double-360-neck-snap didn’t give it away: THIS ENTIRE PIECE WAS STAGED.”

The deepfake technology used in this spoof video masks the face of another actor with the face of actor Keanu Reeves. As with the Bosstown Dynamics video, the nature of this spoof is not revealed at any point in the video itself. Unaware users must scroll down to the description box and click the SHOW MORE button to see a text disclaimer.

Legality of Spoofs

Trademark Law

The legality of a spoof or parody material depends on the product, work, or person being parodied. In the case of the Bosstown Dynamics video, laws around trademark protections would apply. Trademark laws are applied to "enable the public to identify easily a particular product from a particular source."[5] Corridor Digital faced no litigation for their military bot video, but there are tangible instances in the past of trademark law being applied in opposition of a work of spoof or parody.

In 1997, Danish band Aqua released the song Barbie Girl, inspired by the real-life product Barbie dolls[6]. The owner of the Barbie trademark, Mattel Inc., immediately filed a lawsuit against all involved in the production of the song[7]. Mattel argued that the use of their trademark for the song was dilutive in two primary ways: that the term Barbie would no longer bring to mind solely the popular children's doll, and that the song damages the trademark's image because the song's content is "inappropriate for young girls."[8] Neither MCA (the production company behind the song) or the courts disputed this claim of dilution made by Mattel.

In 2002, courts ruled that Aqua's song was protected by the first amendment right to free speech[9]. While Mattel did bring up points of contention that the courts agreed with, it was not enough to trump the first amendment protections. The relationship between trademark protections and first amendment rights is a complicated one, but there do exist general guidelines for the idea of fair use. Some of these guidelines are even ported from the "fair use" doctrine of copyright law[10]. The general guidelines go that a work of parody or satire is protected so long as the parodied work is not intended for commercial use and its existence clearly will not create confusion[11].

Right of Publicity

Trademark law isn't applicable in every situation of spoof, however. In the case of Corridor Digital's video about Keanu Reeves, no brand is being mimicked or imitated. Instead, a real person's likeness is being used in a work of art. This situation would fall under an individual's right of publicity, which was introduced to prevent the unauthorized use of an individual's name, likeness, or recognizable attributes of their persona[12].

While, again, no litigation was taken for or against Keanu Reeves or Corridor Digital, legal precedence exists for both parties. The likeness of Keanu Reeves as well as his name is used throughout the video. In addition, certain aspects of his persona were mimicked as the main point of parodied emphasis in the video. This primarily manifests as Reeves' reception in pop culture as an extraordinarily kind individual[13]. It could be argued that this satisfies the legal precedence required for a violation of an individual's right to publicity.

However, opposers might argue that Corridor Digital's use of Reeves' likeness does not satisfy the requirement that the use of an individual's likeness be for commercial purposes. The right to publicity only reaches commercial use[14]. Commercial use would require that any violating work be in the category of advertising, merchandise, promoting, or selling[15].

Ethical Considerations of Spoofs

Presentation as Truth

When the Bosstown Dynamics video went live, many viewers who saw the video itself and shares of it thought it to be authentic[16]. With the disclaimer revealing the truth being hidden behind an extra click in the video description, viewers may be discouraged from finding the truth about the video's nature[17]. This introduces concerns of misinformation.

Deepfake Technology

  1. ↑ “New Robot Makes Soldiers Obsolete (Corridor Digital).” 2019. YouTube Video. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3RIHnK0_NE
  2. ↑ https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/safety-resources/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/spoofing-and-phishing
  3. ↑ https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/21086316/deepfake-ai-generated-people-impossible-detect/
  4. ↑ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/11/09/fact-check-video-military-robot-cgi-parody-not-reality/8242729001/
  5. ↑ Lemley, Mark A. “The Modern Lanham Act and the Death of Common Sense.” The Yale Law Journal 108, no. 7 (1999): 1687–1715. https://doi.org/10.2307/797447.
  6. ↑ “Aqua – ‘Barbie Girl.’” FreakyTrigger. Accessed February 10, 2023. https://freakytrigger.co.uk/popular/2014/04/aqua-barbie-girl/
  7. ↑ “Mattel Sues Aqua over ‘Barbie Girl.’” Rolling Stone. September 13, 1997. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/mattel-sues-aqua-over-barbie-girl-118991/
  8. ↑ “MATTEL INC v. MCA RECORDS INC (2002).” 2002. Findlaw. July 24, 2002. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1260576.html
  9. ↑ “MATTEL INC v. MCA RECORDS INC (2002).” 2002. Findlaw. July 24, 2002. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1260576.html
  10. ↑ Shaughnessy, Robert J. “Trademark Parody: A Fair Use and First Amendment Analysis.” Virginia Law Review 72, no. 6 (1986): 1079–1117. https://doi.org/10.2307/1072979
  11. ↑ Dengel, Carlianna. 2022. “Can Someone Use Your Trademark without Permission?” Romano Law. October 24, 2022. https://www.romanolaw.com/2022/10/24/can-someone-use-your-trademark-without-permission-under-the-fair-use-doctrine/
  12. ↑ “Publicity.” 2020. LII / Legal Information Institute. 2020. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/publicity
  13. ↑ Fry, Naomi. 2019. “Keanu Reeves Is Too Good for This World.” The New Yorker. 2019. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/keanu-reeves-is-too-good-for-this-world
  14. ↑ Barnett, Stephen R. “FIRST AMENDMENT LIMITS ON THE RIGHT OF PUBLICITY.” Tort & Insurance Law Journal 30, no. 3 (1995): 635–62. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25762506
  15. ↑ Barnett, Stephen R. “FIRST AMENDMENT LIMITS ON THE RIGHT OF PUBLICITY.” Tort & Insurance Law Journal 30, no. 3 (1995): 635–62. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25762506
  16. ↑ https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/17/20697540/boston-dynamics-robots-commercial-real-world-business-spot-on-sale
  17. ↑ Davis, J. L., & Chouinard, J. B. (2016). Theorizing affordances: From request to refuse. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36(4), 241-248.
Retrieved from "http://si410wiki.sites.uofmhosting.net/index.php?title=Spoofing_in_Media&oldid=115760"