> Yet rather than simply quote Schumer’s words, the NRSC, the campaign arm responsible for electing Republican senators and chaired by Tim Scott, a South Carolina senator, chose to manufacture synthetic video of him speaking.
Does this count as slander or libel at some point? Surely it must if they produce fake material to give off a false impression of the subject. Maybe not this case, but we must be getting there.
It'd have to make a false statement of fact. The problem with that is, according to the article, Schumer actually did say the words and the video has a disclaimer that it's AI, though it could be more visible since it seems to get partially hidden by video controls. From the article:
A small disclaimer tucked in the corner acknowledges its artificial origins.
...
> The video has bewildered those who watched it online, given that the quote itself is real and on the record for Punchbowl News. In the original interview, Schumer explained that Democrats had prepared their healthcare-focused shutdown strategy well in advance, adding: “Their whole theory was – threaten us, bamboozle us and we would submit in a day or two.”
The part that's false here, the idea that it's a real video, would be hurt by the disclaimer of it being AI generated in the corner. And it's not a misquote of him, so it seems hard to make a defamation case out of this, even if it feels wrong.
Probably not at this point, because he actually said it.
I mean, it still could be - if the video shows him in a compromising position, if it shows him with a sneer that wasn't how he actually said it, or something else that makes it more negative than just the words.
I mean, look, it's still a lie, because it's pretending to be a video of him saying it, and it's not. But it's probably not slander or libel... at this point.
Comments
Democracy is lost to lies.
Does this count as slander or libel at some point? Surely it must if they produce fake material to give off a false impression of the subject. Maybe not this case, but we must be getting there.
I wonder if a better angle would be just the unauthorized used of likeness.
Here it's for actors https://apnews.com/article/california-hollywood-actors-ai-pr... but probably shoukd apply to everyone.
It'd have to make a false statement of fact. The problem with that is, according to the article, Schumer actually did say the words and the video has a disclaimer that it's AI, though it could be more visible since it seems to get partially hidden by video controls. From the article:
The part that's false here, the idea that it's a real video, would be hurt by the disclaimer of it being AI generated in the corner. And it's not a misquote of him, so it seems hard to make a defamation case out of this, even if it feels wrong.
Probably not at this point, because he actually said it.
I mean, it still could be - if the video shows him in a compromising position, if it shows him with a sneer that wasn't how he actually said it, or something else that makes it more negative than just the words.
I mean, look, it's still a lie, because it's pretending to be a video of him saying it, and it's not. But it's probably not slander or libel... at this point.