Who Owns the Rights to Your Face?

Mookie_Magnus

Clouded Leopard
Jan 24, 2009
4,011
0
0
They did this with the image of Orville Reddenbacher. For a Superbowl commercial(One within the last couple of years) they showed a commercial with a CGI representation of the late popcorn icon listening to an iPod and making popcorn. It was very well done, almost seamless, though I could tell it was fake.

Some reactions to that commercial ranged from people finding it sick and morbid, to people finding it quite convincing. Regardless of the feelings, these people saw how realistic it was, and it stuck to them.
 

feather240

New member
Jul 16, 2009
1,921
0
0
I've never experienced the uncanny valley for 3D animation. Real robots scare me, but anything done with a computer doesn't affect me. (i.e. i-robot, polar express, video games ect.)
 

Gaias

New member
Apr 2, 2009
88
0
0
Doesn't the fact that you are seeing these images in a magazine or on a computer automatically convinces you these images are not real? Or has basic human perception and common sense went out the window with the current crop of humans?
 

Echolocating

New member
Jul 13, 2006
617
0
0
This article, unfortunately, has practically nothing to do with the uncanny valley. The uncanny valley is really about how our struggle to achieve digital realism produces awkward and unsettling results. Fooling people with digital wizardry has nothing to do with that.

That said, it will be an interesting time when "photographic evidence" is inadmissible in court.

Regarding the uncanny valley, you need only look at the work of shitty plastic surgeons to realize that much of the "problem" lies in poor artistry. There are plenty of manufactured real people that look oddly horrifying.
 

Xelanath

New member
Jan 24, 2009
70
0
0
Srsly said:
So if you don't want your face/body enhanced, don't be on a cover then, silly. Or make sure that the person that's doing the Photoshop work knows what the hell they're doing.
The problem with this, one that the article discusses in one way, is that often people don't have a say in the matter. And as the technology gets better and more widespread this issue will surely only get worse.
 

Neesa

New member
Jan 29, 2009
510
0
0
Xelanath said:
Srsly said:
So if you don't want your face/body enhanced, don't be on a cover then, silly. Or make sure that the person that's doing the Photoshop work knows what the hell they're doing.
The problem with this, one that the article discusses in one way, is that often people don't have a say in the matter. And as the technology gets better and more widespread this issue will surely only get worse.
Yeah. It sucks cause once they sign the contract their opinion or say is null and void.
 

Dooly95

New member
Jun 13, 2009
355
0
0
Kwil said:
Dooly95 said:
I personally don't see a big problem. If I see a person in a photograph and judge him on that, doesn't that say more about me than him?

I for one, welcome the new virtual reality, where the lines between fantasy and reality is blurred. We might have less real crimes if that came to be.
If a hiring manager sees you in a photograph performing fellatio on a donkey and doesn't hire you, whether it says more about him or you is really a moot point.
If he was looking at said photos in the first place, I doubt I'd want to work there anyway.

The_root_of_all_evil said:
Dooly95 said:
I for one, welcome the new virtual reality, where the lines between fantasy and reality is blurred. We might have less real crimes if that came to be.
And a lot more fantasy crimes commited in reality.

Red or blue pill, Mr. Anderson?
Sign me up. I need to be rich, but not too famous.

As someone said earlier, if it looks, smells, tastes, feels like steak, then for many purposes it is steak.

Thinking about it, I'll retract my statement of there being less crimes in real life. An escape from reality does not necessary mean freedom from morals.
 

zoozilla

New member
Dec 3, 2007
959
0
0
For some reason, it never really occurred to me that we will ever overcome the uncanny valley effect.

I just assumed it wouldn't be possible - that no matter how precisely a human was digitally re-created, there would be something that told us that it was fake. Similar to how an expert of Egyptian artefacts can look at any fake and almost instantly tell whether it is genuine.

The idea that we could have trouble distinguishing between a digital world and real life is kind of disturbing. It'd be like being lost in a dream - and while lucid dreams are a hell of a lot of fun, I don't think I'd ever want to be trapped in one forever.
 

Sanaj

New member
Mar 20, 2009
322
0
0
samsonguy920 said:
I often wonder lately why there is a such a big push to create simulated reality to such a degree that it stands in for the real thing with very minor chance of it being seen as a forgery. This article answers that question, while raising another: Can we escape the eventual plunge into such a simulacrum of reality?
As Morpheus said in The Matrix, 'Most people in the Matrix are so deeply inbedded into it that they will fight to remain." Case in point: Cypher.

Iori35 said:
People that find it more involving to invest more time in virtual worlds than the real world are seeking an escape.
People that are invested more in CGI characters than real ones are most likely very socially awkward and anxious when confronted by groups.

It won't mean we completely understand humans just because we can create realistic still and moving images that are facsimiles of humans.

Why do people focus so much time and effort to make realistic looking images and animations?
Isn't one of the strengths of the video game medium that it can be completely unrealistic or be about anything we can imagine?
Since photo realism is still 15-20 years away, why aren't stylized art forms more widely used in video games?
People who invest themselves into artificial reality because they may be socially awkward, are only making themselves socially awkward even more. Second Life, fun as it may be, is not a primer for real life social contact. It becomes too easy to build a fiction around yourself, that nobody would recognize you if they met you in real life.
And I wouldn't put a forecast on when photo-realism occurs, it could be as easily as tomorrow. And that's a good question for #1 and #3. My thoughts on 1 is we are already so into the computer age that we have fallen into the God Trap, where we want to make our own realities, for us to control and create in. It's just a thought.
It is difficult to predict when true photo-realism is reached and the uncanny valley is overcome.
As for Second Life, I have absolutely no interest or experience with it...but it doesn't appeal to me at all.
Also, I've never understood the popularity or appeal of The Sims games.

I'm an introverted person and I am quite uncomfortable when around large groups of people.
Yet, I can't fool myself into thinking that online social interactions / scripted NPC interactions are anywhere near as meaningful
or involving as talking face to face with a person.
If there's one thing that you can't run from it's yourself.

People do like to feel in control of their lives.
Which is why I think even control over a virtual world gives some people a sense of security and satisfaction.
 

Fearzone

Boyz! Boyz! Boyz!
Dec 3, 2008
1,241
0
0
Interesting question about what accounts for the uncanny valley. I'm pretty sure it's the animations, or at least that is a major factor, above and beyond the freeze-frame appearances.

As evidence: there is a broad range of artistic styles in graphic novels and stories beginning with simple cartoons and reaching toward realism, but rarely there has there been much discussion of the uncanny valley in that medium. It took a robotics expert to coin the concept.

An unblinking and rigid expression and stiff body movements kill the overall effect, even with otherwise superb graphics. Likewise, smooth, natural and energetic movements can overcome simplistic graphic design.
 

DrFausty

New member
May 12, 2009
8
0
0
Kwil said:
If a hiring manager sees you in a photograph performing fellatio on a donkey and doesn't hire you, whether it says more about him or you is really a moot point.
Sort of depends on where you're interviewing - some employers don't automatically rule out good candidates if they don't fit the vanilla mold of white, straight, conservative conventionality. Indeed, the hiring decision in many states cannot, legally, be made on the basis of sexual orientation - though I suppose if a blanket ban were in place on any candidate who had any image of them engaging in any sexual activity available, it would pass legal muster. Which, speaking as a hiring manager and employer brings the question: what kind of a pathetic company would freak out over a sexy picture? Since when is "has an active sexual life" a disqualifying trait in adult human beings? Or is it just having a picture that somehow makes someone un-employable? I guess I just don't understand the relevance, for 99% of job openings.

Anyway, good article. Missed the biggest business opportunity to be found in all of this, however: porn.

http://www.cultureghost.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1267

Fausty | www.cultureghost.org
 

Woem

New member
May 28, 2009
2,878
0
0
The fact that the walking Christopher Reeve was obviously computer-generated and that it was a commercial aired during the Superbowl did not stop people from believing it was real. Why? Because they wanted to believe it was real. And people go a long way to get what they want.

We're now just looking at a first step in the digitization of real people. We're able to creating a realistic 3D model and to have that model move in a believable fashion. It's only a small step to copy the voice pattern and have the model speak in a believable fashion. A real world application would be to fake the discovery of an unreleased recording by Tupac Shakur or Elvis Presley. Even if people knew it was a fake they might go with the fantasy if the song was based on the artist's lyrics, or if the artist died while working on this final song and this technology was used to finish it. Ask yourself: how many people would see a holographic Michael Jackson performing his final "This Is It" concert? How much would they be willing to pay for this?

Taking this a step further we could copy a subject's personality. There's even no need for full-blown artificial intelligence. A chat bot that copies the subject's behavior in a believable fashion would suffice. Imagine a museum that would allow you to talk to Che Guevara, Maximilien Robespierre or Abraham Lincoln. Or that you could talk to the representation of a deceased loved one. He would look, sound and act just like the original person.

I want to believe, therefor you are.
 

lewiswhitling

New member
May 18, 2009
102
0
0
Id love to ask how many people get confused between really good CG pictures and actual photos which have been heavily modified. I suppose it's more to do with the fact that people who have grown up seeing CG develop from wobbly clay to laser engineering are probably more alert to when something shown to them is fake.

But tbh, i think the "Uncanny Valley" is making an incorrect statement about what makes a thing "wrong" or "awkward". Something isn't awkward because it's nearly real imo (or a little bit unrealistic). I think it's simply a case of something looking scary because of what it looks like - regardless of its level of realism. A model who's prosthetic skin is hanging off her eyes is going to look unnerving. And the aliens in "Aliens" are scary because of whatever neurological trigger they set off etc.

But no one would call the aliens in that film "realistic" would they? it doesn't even seem to be part of the question of why they do look scary. I have a hunch that this extends to anything which seems unnerving and strange.
 

znix

New member
Apr 9, 2009
176
0
0
Did the author make the picture used as header? If not, can we please get a source?
 

Hamster at Dawn

It's Hazard Time!
Mar 19, 2008
1,650
0
0
Why are people so confused about Christopher Reeve? They already had a documentary years ago where they showed how he could walk by consuming foetuses.
 

thedo12

New member
Oct 22, 2008
57
0
0
if someone makes a fake version of me and makes it do disgusting thing's, I really don't give a shit. I just wouldn't wacth/play it.
 

PKM_UK

New member
Aug 19, 2009
1
0
0
OK, someone had to say it. "Photorealistic" or "indistinguishable from real life" for who? Show the average Escapist reader a 'shopped celebrity nude or a video of someone gunning down hookers in GTA IV and they will instantly recognise it as a fake. Show my grandmother (ok, maybe not the n00ds) and it's less certain.

I'm not saying old people were born yesterday, but greater exposure to the increasing capability of CGI means the average tech-literate 20something is always going to be better at spotting a fake than the average technophobic 60something.

The other consideration is the context in which the fakery is seen. With the Turing test, if you set out to prove a chatbot is a chatbot you will soon get them saying nonsensical things, but as someone proved in some MUD or other, in a casual exchange chatbots can and do fool humans into believing they are humans. The same is true in CGI- you know the flying rocket-car in a summer blockbuster is fake *because you expect it to be*. Put a clip of it in a tech segment at the end of the local news and you'd fool any number of people with some decent CG. You could argue photorealistic CGI was realised as soon as a render of a concept car appeared in the media and someone thought it was a real photo. What about the Porsche shooting brake? Hell, even the latest Sims game can look pretty real if you squint at it right.

In these circumstances, the potential of photorealistic-to-a-casual-observer CGI is much more worrying.