Celebrity CGI in games - is it legal?

[DarthSeduction]

Whoever initially put the number there intended it to be either a 6 or a 9. Two unrelated people looking at it from one side or another are no more correct than a person from japan who would look at it and say it's the Hiragana for the letter no の.

Ellen Paige consented to those two sex scenes. Just as you don't have consent to have sex with a girl just because she is not a virgin, you don't have consent to use a person's image in sexual content without their permission.

 

[polywog]

Whoever initially put the number there intended it to be either a 6 or a 9. Two unrelated people looking at it from one side or another are no more correct than a person from japan who would look at it and say it's the Hiragana for the letter no の.

Ellen Paige consented to those two sex scenes. Just as you don't have consent to have sex with a girl just because she is not a virgin, you don't have consent to use a person's image in sexual content without their permission.

I certainly don't condone real rape, it's a horrible thing, but you're entitled to your opinion, and you have a right to enjoy and share your rape fantasy.


People who know how to fap, and take care of their own needs, are the least likely to commit rape. I get your point, that some people have trouble distinguishing between fantasy and reality. I wish you well, I really do.

 

[saintvermillion]

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

One of those links is about defamation, three are about leaked real nude photos and one is relevant to what I was talking about. I never knew Milano tried to sue five of the site operators. I wonder if she was successful. If she had been I imagine more celebrities would have followed suit(tee hee). Either way it's all a drop in the bucket compared to the size of the nude fake community. There were hundreds of websites, thousands of creators and millions of people who downloaded those fakes. One of the ironies is I was always a fan of the wild west nature of the internet back then, the piracy and hacker ethos and freedom associated, the one area where the grubby control desperate fingers of government and corporations couldn't really reach but when it came to amateur revenge porn I acted as the primary catalyst for the laws being established in my country. The difference in my mind being those were for the protection of the average person.

 

[polywog]

One of those links is about defamation, three are about leaked real nude photos and one is relevant to what I was talking about. I never knew Milano tried to sue five of the site operators. I wonder if she was successful. If she had been I imagine more celebrities would have followed suit(tee hee). Either way it's all a drop in the bucket compared to the size of the nude fake community. There were hundreds of websites, thousands of creators and millions of people who downloaded those fakes. One of the ironies is I was always a fan of the wild west nature of the internet back then, the piracy and hacker ethos and freedom associated, the one area where the grubby control desperate fingers of government and corporations couldn't really reach but when it came to amateur revenge porn I acted as the primary catalyst for the laws being established in my country. The difference in my mind being those were for the protection of the average person.

The Milano story is from more than 2 decades ago. The young rebellious actress was determined to not be typecast as a child star. At the end of the 80s early 90s she did some naughty films to show that she was an adult. Her mother was her manager so it had to have been awkward all around. As your article says it was very embarrassing when the mother allowed the little brother to use the internet without parental control. I can't say how it affected him emotionally, seeing his big sister naked having an orgy with vampires, and again while playing a naughty nun. A lot for a kid to take in at that age. The mother had more to answer for than anyone else. From such an indefensible position she refused to take responsibility for her own actions and blamed everyone but herself. Milano had made the films, under her mother's management. Of course posters and stills are going to be distributed to market the films and they were everywhere on the internet. It's totally understandable that she had regrets, it likely impacted the family for years and required therapy. But it was her choice, she was paid to make the movies, nobody did anything wrong. Own up your mistakes. If she had started the "don't make the same mistakes I did foundation" back in the day, then maybe Harvey Weinstein never would have happened to all his victims, but she didn't do that. She started the "hide my mistakes and nude pics club"

She legit posed for pics. That's not the same as a look alike game character.

 

[saintvermillion]

The Milano story is from more than 2 decades ago. The young rebellious actress was determined to not be typecast as a child star. At the end of the 80s early 90s she did some naughty films to show that she was an adult. Her mother was her manager so it had to have been awkward all around. As your article says it was very embarrassing when the mother allowed the little brother to use the internet without parental control. I can't say how it affected him emotionally, seeing his big sister naked having an orgy with vampires, and again while playing a naughty nun. A lot for a kid to take in at that age. The mother had more to answer for than anyone else. From such an indefensible position she refused to take responsibility for her own actions and blamed everyone but herself. Milano had made the films, under her mother's management. Of course posters and stills are going to be distributed to market the films and they were everywhere on the internet. It's totally understandable that she had regrets, it likely impacted the family for years and required therapy. But it was her choice, she was paid to make the movies, nobody did anything wrong. Own up your mistakes. If she had started the "don't make the same mistakes I did foundation" back in the day, then maybe Harvey Weinstein never would have happened to all his victims, but she didn't do that. She started the "hide my mistakes and nude pics club"

She legit posed for pics. That's not the same as a look alike game character.

I misread the milano article, the mention of the nude celebrity fakes being the worst made me think the sites she targeted in her lawsuit were nude celebrity fakes websites not nude celebrity ones. Plus the fact I was quoted by the person who posted the links made me think at least one of the five articles was related to fakes. Guess I was right from the start, no one ever really went after the fakers. Interesting to hear some of the background on her scenes. I'm sure her actions were motivated by regret but she had every right to do it under copyright law. The operators were making money off her image with no payment going to her.

 

[kaboomer69]

Keep in mind guys, things like Deepfakes and the traditional celeb fakes are a completely different matter than having something designed from scratch in a 3D program.

If you look at the various DAZ celebs, there are some that are very obviously created from photographs. You can immediately see it on the face textures, and they are fairly low quality.
Example this here is a teenage version of Scarlet Johanson from the "Celeb Series", which are not on the DAZ store or Renderosity:

​

So this could without a doubt get sued to death, unless the model/textures were designed with consent of Scarlet Johanson. They are all still commercially available though, to use as you see fit.


The celebs I recognized on Renderosity (like those from Sangriart) are apparently made from scratch, as the textures are much higher quality with less resemblance.

​

Fictional incest is not illegal.

It is illegal in some US states, which is the reason why you always see the "step" prefix on any major commercial sites.

Of course it is laughable by international standards - by that logic you couldn't make a movie depicting a person being murdered, because murder is illegal.
And in many countries, the act of incest itself is not even illegal.

A caricature that is libelous can and has been used as justification for a lawsuit.

Celebrities have a right to expect privacy, they have a right to expect that their image not be used in a way that they would disapprove of.

These are completely different issues.

For example the caricature can be brought to court for things like defamation, but not for the artwork per se. And the local laws vary so much that there can be no talk of any kind of international consensus. What can be severely fined as dishonorment in one country, is perfectly acceptable in another (no matter how offensive or false the depiction is).
I'm also fairly certain that most countries have no precedence on the topic wether a genuinely created 3D character looking similar to a real person can even be subject to any kind of legal action.

And the principles of privacy and the right of your own image only concern your actual privacy (like stalking people or snooping around in their private matters) and the actual images of your person, which means photographs. The artwork is still original if you created it from scratch, there is no patent for the physical appearance of a person. Otherwise you could sue someone for looking similar to you (double) and posting a photo of himself.

Stop trying to reason your way out of this.

You are not giving orders to me or anyone else on this forum, thank you.

 

[saintvermillion]

I'm also fairly certain that most countries have no precedence on the topic wether a genuinely created 3D character looking similar to a real person can even be subject to any kind of legal action.

Considering the broadness/vagueness of some of the legal definitions in this domain even without precedence I wouldn't be shocked if it fell under the umbrella of existing law in certain jurisdictions but I highly highly doubt anyone would come after you for it.

 

[c3p0]

Considering the broadness/vagueness of some of the legal definitions in this domain even without precedence I wouldn't be shocked if it fell under the umbrella of existing law in certain jurisdictions but I highly highly doubt anyone would come after you for it.

If it's legal or not I don't know and I don't think that all states of the world see it the same.

What I think if a celebrities want to sue you, even if they know that they wouldn't gain right, they could made your life a financial hell. Go to three instance (for most states) to pay lawers, even if you would be right in the end? Most of us don't have this much money they can use over years for this.
Sure most celebrities would like to solve this without to much publicity, so you should come out with only a black eye.

And for the Public figure: At least in Europe they have lesser right for privacy than the common citizen (

You must be registered to see the links

,

You must be registered to see the links

)

 

[おい！]

Keep in mind guys, things like Deepfakes and the traditional celeb fakes are a completely different matter than having something designed from scratch in a 3D program.

If you look at the various DAZ celebs, there are some that are very obviously created from photographs. You can immediately see it on the face textures, and they are fairly low quality.
Example this here is a teenage version of Scarlet Johanson from the "Celeb Series", which are not on the DAZ store or Renderosity:

View attachment 235322
​

So this could without a doubt get sued to death, unless the model/textures were designed with consent of Scarlet Johanson.

In my humble opinion she does not look like Scarlett Johansson as a teenager, so I think you would be quite safe there. Here is a reference to how she looked as a real teenager

They do not look like the same person to me.

 

[kaboomer69]

In my humble opinion she does not look like Scarlett Johansson as a teenager, so I think you would be quite safe there. Here is a reference to how she looked as a real teenager
View attachment 235380
They do not look like the same person to me.

The similarity wasn't really the point of my train of thoughts

What I meant was that these specific DAZ products must have been made with real photographs; there are several tools which do that automatically (with extremely varying results).

You must be registered to see the links

TBH Scarlet J, Liv Tyler and Angelina Jolie are the only ones I could clearly recognize, three more are apparently meant to be Jennifer Lawrence, Anne Hathaway and Megan Sparkle. For the rest I'm just thinking - who the fuck are these people

 

[おい！]

The similarity wasn't really the point of my train of thoughts

What I meant was that these specific DAZ products must have been made with real photographs; there are several tools which do that automatically (with extremely varying results).

You must be registered to see the links

TBH Scarlet J, Liv Tyler and Angelina Jolie are the only ones I could clearly recognize, three more are apparently meant to be Jennifer Lawrence, Anne Hathaway and Megan Sparkle. For the rest I'm just thinking - who the fuck are these people

Yes but as I said they do not look like the same person


So if someone used a photograph then they got it wrong, I cannot see how anyone can say these are the same 2 people.

 

[saintvermillion]

The similarity wasn't really the point of my train of thoughts

What I meant was that these specific DAZ products must have been made with real photographs; there are several tools which do that automatically (with extremely varying results).

You must be registered to see the links

TBH Scarlet J, Liv Tyler and Angelina Jolie are the only ones I could clearly recognize, three more are apparently meant to be Jennifer Lawrence, Anne Hathaway and Megan Sparkle. For the rest I'm just thinking - who the fuck are these people

For shits and giggles:

1. Unknown
2. Amanda Tapping (was in Stargate SG-1 and became a tv sci-fi director)
3. Mary Lynn Rajskub? played chloe o'brien the tech whiz on the tv show 24
4. Unknown but the eyes remind me of Penelope Cruz
5. Cameron Diaz(something about mary, sex-tape, vanilla sky and that smile is the stuff of uncanny valley nightmares)
6. Kate Beckinsale (underworld sci-fi movie series)
7. Jessica Biel (Blade: Trinity and Season 1 of the Sinner)
8. Jessica Alba (Sin City, Fantastic Four, Dark Angel)
9. Unknown
10. Hair makes me think harley quinn aka margot robbie but not sure.
11. Cara Delevingne (famous supermodel and played the enchantress/Dr. Moon in the suicide squad movie)
12. Mila Kunis (That 70s show)
13. Scarlett Johansson (played mokoto kusanagi in the bastardization of ghost in the shell)
14. Kristen Stewart (personal shopper, bella in the twilight movies)
15. Liv Tyler (the leftovers, sleeping beauty etc)
16. Megan Fox (Jennifer's Body, Transformers movies)
17. Unknown
18. Emma Watson (Hermoine in Harry Potter, Beauty and The Beast remake)
19. Jennifer Lawrence (passengers, hunger games movies, red sparrow)
20. Angelina Jolie (original sin, taking lives, hackers, wanted, mr and mrs smith)
21. Marisa Tomei
22. Jennifer Lopez (singer,

You must be registered to see the links

)
23. Natalie Portman (v for vendetta, star wars prequel trilogy etc)
24. Not sure but gives me kardashian/jenner vibes for some reason.
25. Unknown
26. Unknown

Yes but as I said they do not look like the same person
View attachment 235420

So if someone used a photograph then they got it wrong, I cannot see how anyone can say these are the same 2 people.

I figure they used a current photograph to model then tried to use some kind of age morphs in daz to turn back the clock. That resulted in a somewhat adult face on her body.

 

[kaboomer69]

I figure they used a current photograph to model then tried to use some kind of age morphs in daz to turn back the clock. That resulted in a somewhat adult face on her body.

No this is the version from the linked Celebrity Series, I used a tool called Growing Up to make her look younger like in "Girl with a Pearl Earring". Pretty bad test render with some image optimization on top.

 

[c3p0]

....
To anyone appealing to law alone on this issue, I'd like to remind you all that it is currently perfectly legal in parts of the world to own and sell human beings.

True, but what is your point with this?
Sure if we searched over the world for the possible "lowest" rights in a state for celebrities I don't think the USA or (Central) Europe would comes first. Also how should we do otherwise?

Individual opinions don't really help and being a celebrities is always a double-edge sword. Without the press, most celebrities wouldn't be what their are and of course the press aren't nice enough to present them in the best light.

What is legal isn't always what is right.

Also true. But again, what is your point with this remark? Should we not have a law system as deployed in most "mordern" nations? The opposite to this would be much less comfortable as that what we have at the moment, I believe.

And so on the subject of a celebrity's right to privacy we need to take into account why that legal status exists. There are entities with money and power which profit from this reduced privacy. TMZ for instance, isn't going to support any legal action to change the status of privacy protections for celebrities. They and other entities interested in this incredibly lucrative industry are going to spend lots of money lobbying to keep this the status quo.

I don't believe that the celebrities don't do the same. Should we have it more traceable to know which group what wants and how their are trying to accomplish this? I would not be against it. Lobbying, donations, who is behind which act, ....

Furthermore, I want to again bring up the Ellen Paige incident, as it constitutes a specific instance wherein an entity with much more financial power than the singular celebrity was forced to take action for "legal reasons" to protect a celebrity's image. That tells me that even in the US, where a celebrity generally speaking has less rights to privacy than the european states, a celebrity can bring significant legal protection to their image being used in a sexual way.

Why do they have setteld it? In this and in much more case it is not only about who would be right. Other reason like avoiding publicity, don't have a decision from a supreme court, and so on can also be a reason.

 

[saintvermillion]

No this is the version from the linked Celebrity Series, I used a tool called Growing Up to make her look younger like in "Girl with a Pearl Earring". Pretty bad test render with some image optimization on top.

As far as her circa Girl with a Pearl Earring it's not a half bad effort.

 

[おい！]

No this is the version from the linked Celebrity Series, I used a tool called Growing Up to make her look younger like in "Girl with a Pearl Earring". Pretty bad test render with some image optimization on top.

So more like this then

I still do not see the resemblance.

 

[saintvermillion]

So more like this then
View attachment 235445
I still do not see the resemblance.

I can't see any differences

but why does the difference matter when the original was obviously modeled off a photograph?

 

[おい！]

View attachment 235451
I can't see any differences

but why does the difference matter when the original was obviously modeled off a photograph?

Maybe you just accept anything that someone puts a name to as looking like the real thing? I am a bit different, I actually think if a model is supposed to be based on a real person it needs to be as accurate as possible.
If you looked at the two images properly you would for example, see
The face is the wrong shape
The cheeks are wrong
The lower jaw and chin are wrong
The distance between the nose and top lip are wrong
The distance between the bottom lip and end of the chin are wrong

Of course you would think it was fine, because you cannot see the difference between an ape and a human.

 

[saintvermillion]

Maybe you just accept anything that someone puts a name to as looking like the real thing? I am a bit different, I actually think if a model is supposed to be based on a real person it needs to be as accurate as possible.
If you looked at the two images properly you would for example, see
The face is the wrong shape
The cheeks are wrong
The lower jaw and chin are wrong
The distance between the nose and top lip are wrong
The distance between the bottom lip and end of the chin are wrong

Of course you would think it was fine, because you cannot see the difference between an ape and a human.

In regards to kaboomer69's version you are completely correct, that would be difficult to sue over. In regards to the celebrity series daz models I believe they are close enough to warrant a good execution of scientology's favourite pastime. Same with the version from celebrity series that kaboomer69's version was based on (attached). Would a celebrity ever bother suing over it? No. Not enough monetary benefit and would only draw attention to what they didn't want attention brought to. Could it be viewed differently, sure maybe a hypothetical jury in the spirit of subjectivity would say they are not close enough to be a replica of the celebrity's image but I doubt it. Wait.. what do you mean ape? where?

As to Darth Seduction's general proposition that the legal lines are arbitrary and that many of the practices mentioned such as deepfaking, using a celebrities image for a daz 3d model in a sex game, celebrity nude faking, posting a celebrities's private nudes online are amoral. Absolutely. Just because they are famous doesn't mean they shouldn't be afforded the same rights as everyone else. Does everyone feel as bad about violating those rights knowing they are going home to a mansion in beverly hills to roll around gleefully on a bed of cash? No.

 

[DarthSeduction]

Also true. But again, what is your point with this remark? Should we not have a law system as deployed in most "mordern" nations? The opposite to this would be much less comfortable as that what we have at the moment, I believe.

Well, I'm an anarchist, so I actually don't think we should have a law system "as deployed in most "modern" nations". I think the legal systems in our modern nations are incredibly flawed. There are plenty of laws that limit freedoms that would harm no one. Some of those laws even put minorities in prison at a rate of 7 times that of white people, even though we know white people commit the same "crime" just as often.

Changing our legal systems doesn't mean going opposite. To imply that it does is a dishonest argument.

I don't believe that the celebrities don't do the same. Should we have it more traceable to know which group what wants and how their are trying to accomplish this? I would not be against it. Lobbying, donations, who is behind which act, ....

Celebrities are wealthy, but not wealthy enough to compete with corporations on lobbying and special interests. It's not even a realistic argument to say that celebrities would have that power.

Why do they have setteld it? In this and in much more case it is not only about who would be right. Other reason like avoiding publicity, don't have a decision from a supreme court, and so on can also be a reason.

This is correct, but as someone else already pointed out, there's also the threat of bankruptcy. Donald Trump makes fallacious lawsuits against economically weak opponents all the time, knowing that he'll crush them with money and force a settlement. There's no reason to believe the same couldn't be done by a celebrity against some poor game dev.