[HN Gopher] Trey Parker and Matt Stone's deep fake company annou...
___________________________________________________________________
Trey Parker and Matt Stone's deep fake company announces $20M
investment
Author : tikkun
Score : 88 points
Date : 2023-02-02 19:25 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.deepvoodoo.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.deepvoodoo.com)
| tiahura wrote:
| It seems odd that the money is coming from CAA. Shouldn't they be
| opposed to deepfakes?
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| You're assuming people are going to deepfake actors on to other
| people instead of their younger versions on to themselves.
| chatmasta wrote:
| There is a difference between deepfakes that are openly
| marketed as such, and deepfakes which are maliciously promoted
| as being real videos.
|
| The movie industry in general stands to benefit the most from
| deepfakes. Imagine making a movie without paying any cast? Or
| bringing dead actors back for new roles? There are plenty of
| legitimate use cases for deepfakes.
|
| At first glance it seems that actors would be the first victims
| here, and so you wouldn't expect CAA (an agency representing
| actors) to invest money into a technology that could replace
| them. But I think it's more complicated than that.
|
| Deepfakes won't "replace" actors - certainly not any time soon
| - but will complement them and serve as a multiplier for their
| image. Angelina Jolie can license her likeness, and directors
| can make a movie with a deepfake Jolie. She gets paid for doing
| no work.
|
| The A-listers will be fine. The first victims will be the
| talent that's cast as extras and minor supporting roles. There
| wont be much of a market for deepfake clones of them, and
| eventually some A-lister or entirely synthetic deepfakes will
| crowd them out of their jobs.
| reidjs wrote:
| Disclaimer I've never worked in film or TV.
|
| This may have potential for a smaller indie filmmakers. Have any
| celebrity cameo for cheap in your budget film.
|
| I like that this technology has the potential to lower the value
| of being a Hollywood mega superstar.
| illwrks wrote:
| Does that not devalue the celebrity? If they are everywhere
| then they become tiresome and then the next new one comes along
| jefftk wrote:
| You'd still need to pay the celebrity for the right to use
| their image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
|
| I think it mostly lowers the value of being the next tier down,
| since the mega stars would no longer be limited by hours in the
| day.
| CSMastermind wrote:
| > I like that this technology has the potential to lower the
| value of being a Hollywood mega superstar.
|
| Why would it lower the value of being a Hollywood mega
| superstar?
|
| If anything wouldn't it increase the value of being one?
| Because now Megastar Jim Bob Jones or whoever can "appear" in
| hundreds of movies a year and collect checks from all of them
| for using their likeness. Instead of those roles going to
| smaller actors who would presumably get the part today.
|
| Also it makes the value of that mega superstar more valuable
| because their deepfake won't age nor will it be encumbered by
| their death. We could start seeing Marilyn Monroe in movies
| again. And if you're someone like Brad Pitt, it means suddenly
| you have an entirely new revenue stream from licensing your
| likeness for years, decade, etc.
| User23 wrote:
| Because you prompt the AI to generate Chad Britt who looks
| and sounds an awful lot like Brad Pitt, but not enough so to
| infringe on his likeness rights.
| strulovich wrote:
| If your intention is for people to confuse this person with
| Brad Pitt then you already have issues that will probably
| get to court, at least for the first few times to be
| decided should this be legit or no.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Not a chance. Blurred Lines lost a copyright case for
| seeming like it could have been a Marvin Gaye song. You
| won't be able to use Chad Britt unless it is a satire of
| Brad Pitt that every judge thinks is funny.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Quite a bit of that judgement is slowly being unwound and
| walked back.
|
| Doesn't mean you're wrong about likeness cases, but the
| Blurred Lines/Gaye ruling is far from canon at this
| point.
| fzzzy wrote:
| It was an absolutely terrible judgement. It only happened
| that way because it was a jury. The law doesn't justify
| it.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| Songs are copyrighted. Are faces?
| schrijver wrote:
| Yes. Well, not copyrighted, exactly, but one gets to
| control the commercial exploitation of ones likeness.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| Wouldn't it come down to proof of intent to exploit?
| Surely an actor who happens to look like Brad Pitt can't
| be prevented from working in the film industry on that
| basis alone? I agree that calling themselves Britt Pad or
| whatever might be crossing the line!
| toss1 wrote:
| Seems like it is one thing to hire a look-alike of Brad
| Pitt (or your selected star), a very different thing to
| hire another actor and then replace his/her face with
| synthetic animated images of Brad Pitt.
|
| The first would get laughed out of court. The latter
| would be an obvious ripoff to anyone (perhaps excepting
| some soverign-citizen-level pedants).
| petemir wrote:
| That's why we can have fake Matt Damon (a.k.a. Jesse
| Plemons)
| cma wrote:
| You could train the model on a lookalike and have him
| sign over rights to his (the lookalike's) likeness.
| mritchie712 wrote:
| It's already gone past indie film makers. Kendrick Lamar[0]
| used it in his last video.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAPUkgeiFVY
|
| 0 - Regarded as one of the greatest rappers of all time,
| multiple Grammy Awards.
| benatkin wrote:
| I want to see derp fakes. Like
| https://www.reddit.com/r/taxiderpy/
| post_break wrote:
| Deep fake voices are getting crazy. Match that with deep fake
| video. nsfw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKGPhaVluvQ
| trevoristall wrote:
| Wow that's quite convincing!
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Previous discussion:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34081302
|
| Here's a music video they made:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAPUkgeiFVY&t=1m40s
| josephd79 wrote:
| Wow. That's crazy. Hard to tell they're fakes if it wasn't
| disclosed.
| ShredKazoo wrote:
| Do they have to pay royalties to the people whose faces they
| use?
| brailsafe wrote:
| Damn that was a trip
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Sassy Justice was fun despite being a slightly low quality deep
| fake compared to recent standards. I liked it because it was the
| joke, rather than trying not to draw attention to the fact that
| it's all fake.
| haunter wrote:
| I mean their Trump was pretty good, but it was more like the
| voice that was spot on
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfZuNceFDM&t=560s
| pessimizer wrote:
| The voices were deepfaked too (over an impression), I think.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I believe it was just Serafinowicz doing an impression.
| jpeter wrote:
| The Zuckerberg one is the best
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep-f7uBd8Gc
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I love how they intentionally do a bad job with the Deep
| Fake, which in a way makes him more authentic.
| brailsafe wrote:
| "Stop being a bitchy old grandma" got me
| ramesh31 wrote:
| > I liked it because it was the joke, rather than trying not to
| draw attention to the fact that it's all fake.
|
| Same thing they did with South Park (and Team America). It
| allows for more comedic freedom because you can always fall
| back on the defense of "this is just some stupid crappy thing,
| how could you possibly ever take it seriously".
| soiler wrote:
| Not a harmless technique. Similar to the assholes we all know
| who say "Can't you take a joke?" after saying some really
| mean shit and then laughing at the victim.
| jasmer wrote:
| Technology needs creative minds to make it work meaningfully,
| they have an excellent track record here and deserve this. I
| wouldn't want to be Tom Cruise right now ...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Parker and Stone were pioneers in using CGI-originally, Maya-to
| dramatically compress animation's reaction time. Deep Voodoo
| makes sense as a continuation of that trend into the voice acting
| and realistic animated domains.
| ttoinou wrote:
| What CGI they did exactly ?
| filoleg wrote:
| Pretty much the entirety of South Park series, minus the
| pilot episode (which still used real construction paper).
|
| It became increasingly obvious with time, as they started
| doing a lot of interesting things in later seasons that
| aren't really suited for non-CGI, like smooth camera angle
| rotations around the scene, complex special effects, etc.
| While in the beginning, it was mostly for the sake of making
| it more efficient and simpler to produce an episode.
| tzs wrote:
| > While in the beginning, it was mostly for the sake of
| making it more efficient and simpler to produce an episode
|
| Which they needed because of their insane production
| schedule.
|
| New episodes air on Wednesday on Comedy Central. They have
| to have the complete episode uploaded to Comedy Central a
| few hours before that.
|
| There are times when the Friday before they have no idea
| what the next episode will be about. Parker and Stone
| figure it out over the weekend, Parker writes a script, and
| then production can start on Monday morning. That gives
| them two days plus a few hours to go from freshly finished
| script to complete episode.
|
| They need to, even on what is for them a leisurely week
| where they come up with they have the script by Thursday,
| be able to see that something isn't working and needs to be
| changed hours before air time and have their system be fast
| enough that they can do it.
|
| Around the turn of the century they actually had a more
| powerful animation pipeline than the major animation
| studios like Pixar or DreamWorks or the major CGI places,
| all because they needed such fast turnaround.
| zahrc wrote:
| The documentary "6 days to air"shows how insane this
| is...
|
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2076781/
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-02 23:01 UTC)