# Fake Models, etc.



## VidThreeNorth

Apparently there already is a "stock image" company that sells images of AI created (fake) people.

"Why companies are using 'fake' people in ads",
posted  Jan 14, 2020 by "CBC News" [length 4:29]
"



"


----------



## TWX

The face at 1:11 looks like Kristen Stewart's face applied to a man's head.

The nature of what constitutes fake, generated from constituent pieces, versus generated whole-cloth from scratch seems like an important distinction.  Playing mix-and-match with facial features isn't exactly the same as a full deep-fake.


----------



## TWX

I suppose I should also add, if they're just playing mix-and-match with facial features to attempt to modify non-free images enough to make them their own, they might be in for a shock if any photographers discover elements of their photos in this company's portfolio and attempt to take them to court over it.  Copyright does allow sufficiently derivative work to be free from the original work's copyright, but the nature of what constitutes sufficent derivation is up for debate.


----------



## Derrel

These are 100 percent AI creations, not modified images, not deep fakes, not masive retouches.


----------



## stapo49

Haven't they always used fake people in ads?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## smoke665

stapo49 said:


> Haven't they always used fake people in ads?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk



So all those enhancement aids I bought won't really work?


----------



## vintagesnaps

These would pair up well with the floating heads in the antique shop... 

(And most of those are really lousy quality... they ought to be good for all those cheesy google ads!)


----------



## smoke665

TWX said:


> I suppose I should also add, if they're just playing mix-and-match with facial features to attempt to modify non-free images enough to make them their own, they might be in for a shock if any photographers discover elements of their photos in this company's portfolio and attempt to take them to court over it.  Copyright does allow sufficiently derivative work to be free from the original work's copyright, but the nature of what constitutes sufficent derivation is up for debate.



Oh great, so now photographers not only have to worry about outright theft of images, but now whether they've had pieces ripped off? Can you imagine the legal battles over what constitutes sufficient deviation in the AI composite? How do you even set a standard?


----------



## waday

vintagesnaps said:


> And most of those are really lousy quality... they ought to be good for all those cheesy google ads!


Right, to the discerning eye. But to the general public, these and other deep fakes can be used to trick the general public.

Very scary if you ask me.


----------



## RVT1K

smoke665 said:


> stapo49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't they always used fake people in ads?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So all those enhancement aids I bought won't really work?
Click to expand...

  No, sir. They will not.

 But _MINE_ will!!

 Send ALL your money to.....


----------



## VidThreeNorth

waday said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> 
> And most of those are really lousy quality... they ought to be good for all those cheesy google ads!
> 
> 
> 
> Right, to the discerning eye. But to the general public, these and other deep fakes can be used to trick the general public.
> 
> Very scary if you ask me.
Click to expand...


I didn't see anything in the video that says that these were the best quality available.  Since it was prepared for a "news" piece, it might not have been seen as important.  Besides that, remember that "popular' digital photography started at 640 x 480 (Apple QuickTime camera).  If this is the best that can be done today, it won't take long to improve, if the market wants better.

I'm still letting this sink in.  It doesn't make me happy. . . .


----------



## Derrel

TWX said:


> I suppose I should also add, if they're just playing mix-and-match with facial features to attempt to modify non-free images enough to make them their own, they might be in for a shock if any photographers discover elements of their photos in this company's portfolio and attempt to take them to court over it.  Copyright does allow sufficiently derivative work to be free from the original work's copyright, but the nature of what constitutes sufficent derivation is up for debate.





vintagesnaps said:


> These would pair up well with the floating heads in the antique shop...
> 
> (And most of those are really lousy quality... they ought to be good for all those cheesy google ads!)





waday said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> 
> And most of those are really lousy quality... they ought to be good for all those cheesy google ads!
> 
> 
> 
> Right, to the discerning eye. But to the general public, these and other deep fakes can be used to trick the general public.
> 
> Very scary if you ask me.
Click to expand...


----------



## Derrel

TWX said:


> I suppose I should also add, if they're just playing mix-and-match with facial features to attempt to modify non-free images enough to make them their own, they might be in for a shock if any photographers discover elements of their photos in this company's portfolio and attempt to take them to court over it.  Copyright does allow sufficiently derivative work to be free from the original work's copyright, but the nature of what constitutes sufficent derivation is up for debate.





vintagesnaps said:


> These would pair up well with the floating heads in the antique shop...
> 
> (And most of those are really lousy quality... they ought to be good for all those cheesy google ads!)





waday said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> 
> And most of those are really lousy quality... they ought to be good for all those cheesy google ads!
> 
> 
> 
> Right, to the discerning eye. But to the general public, these and other deep fakes can be used to trick the general public.
> 
> Very scary if you ask me.
Click to expand...


The images shown are -not- retouches or "deep fakes".  The images show what is now possible when a  human-looking face is constructed 100% through artificial intelligence. It would be nice if people would understand the basic idea here, which is that we now have software which can create a face from scratch, with absolutely zero need for a photographic starting point. A deep fake is a computer-generated likeness based upon an actual person.


----------



## RVT1K

I remember hearing/reading somewhere that once computer graphics became powerful enough, there would no longer be a need for real (human) actors.


----------



## smoke665

Derrel said:


> we now have software which can create a face from scratch, with absolutely zero need for a photographic starting point



Yes to a point, someone had to enter parameters to use, based on a knowledge of facial features to begin with. That's like Lr's AI "auto" button, they used input from tons of photographers on processing inputs to allow the AI to have a starting point. Now granted artificial intelligence is more, in that it has the ability to use certain basics to build on. In the case of Lr it supposedly "remembers" you're processing and adjusts it's basic knowledge to more closely represent your particular style. Adobe makes big bets on AI and the public cloud – TechCrunch


----------



## zulu42

This link was posted here before. Can't remember who.

Complete AI generation. No composites, retouch, etc.
This Person Does Not Exist


----------



## smoke665

RVT1K said:


> I remember hearing/reading somewhere that once computer graphics became powerful enough, there would no longer be a need for real (human) actors.



That day is already here, look at films like Star Wars, Pirates of the Caribbean, Tron, Terminator, Abyss, Avatar................the list goes on and on.


----------



## Original katomi

Smoke, add lura Croft in tomb  raider, 
Re your post 8
It becoming an increasing problem and as you and others have said there is no clear guide line
Eg a % of image or of a photographers work#total out put#
Sadly this is one of the reasons why I have adopted the policy
#if I don’t want to copied I don’t post it#
I have had a battle with a stock image group who wanted to use one of my images. How they got to see it I don’t know
But they got really upset when I said no, and still no when they kept on asking.
Took a month before they accepted that I was not going to change my mind
I even told them that the image came from an event that I was given access to on a non commercial use Understanding. 
Don’t know what the answer is , in the days of film and pre good photocopy unless someone got the negs there was a limit to how many and where copies would end up.
Now I chat here on a global site, so for me not posting images that I don’t want copied is option A
Option B is go back to film and not going on line


----------



## RVT1K

smoke665 said:


> RVT1K said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember hearing/reading somewhere that once computer graphics became powerful enough, there would no longer be a need for real (human) actors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That day is already here, look at films like Star Wars, Pirates of the Caribbean, Tron, Terminator, Abyss, Avatar................the list goes on and on.
Click to expand...



Weren't those done by digitizing over an existing (and very real) actor? 
As opposed to creating an "actor" that is a complete fabrication in the digital domain.


----------



## waday

Derrel said:


> TWX said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose I should also add, if they're just playing mix-and-match with facial features to attempt to modify non-free images enough to make them their own, they might be in for a shock if any photographers discover elements of their photos in this company's portfolio and attempt to take them to court over it.  Copyright does allow sufficiently derivative work to be free from the original work's copyright, but the nature of what constitutes sufficent derivation is up for debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> 
> These would pair up well with the floating heads in the antique shop...
> 
> (And most of those are really lousy quality... they ought to be good for all those cheesy google ads!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waday said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> 
> And most of those are really lousy quality... they ought to be good for all those cheesy google ads!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, to the discerning eye. But to the general public, these and other deep fakes can be used to trick the general public.
> 
> Very scary if you ask me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The images shown are -not- retouches or "deep fakes".  The images show what is now possible when a  human-looking face is constructed 100% through artificial intelligence. It would be nice if people would understand the basic idea here, which is that we now have software which can create a face from scratch, with absolutely zero need for a photographic starting point. A deep fake is a computer-generated likeness based upon an actual person.
Click to expand...

Derrel, I think we get that— that deepfakes are something different than what’s provided here. However, these and deep fakes can be considered within the same category: fakes. This alone makes it terrifying in times where things go viral and damage occurs within minutes to hours. 

What’s even more terrifying is when these are found as fake and NOT removed by companies, such as the Mark Zuckerberg deepfake on Facebook.

What if someone creates a fake “executive” or a deepfake of an existing executive at Nikon saying that the company is going under? That could spread like wildfire and could have real effects (think dropping stocks) before Nikon could get an official statement out.


----------



## smoke665

RVT1K said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RVT1K said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember hearing/reading somewhere that once computer graphics became powerful enough, there would no longer be a need for real (human) actors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That day is already here, look at films like Star Wars, Pirates of the Caribbean, Tron, Terminator, Abyss, Avatar................the list goes on and on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't those done by digitizing over an existing (and very real) actor?
> As opposed to creating an "actor" that is a complete fabrication in the digital domain.
Click to expand...


Again where is the line it's a meld of  real, animation, and AI generated. Supposedly the film Avatar was about 60% CGI,  but facial expressions were based on computer captured photos of real people.


----------



## Derrel

smoke665 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> we now have software which can create a face from scratch, with absolutely zero need for a photographic starting point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes to a point, someone had to enter parameters to use, based on a knowledge of facial features to begin with. That's like Lr's AI "auto" button, they used input from tons of photographers on processing inputs to allow the AI to have a starting point. Now granted artificial intelligence is more, in that it has the ability to use certain basics to build on. In the case of Lr it supposedly "remembers" you're processing and adjusts it's basic knowledge to more closely represent your particular style. Adobe makes big bets on AI and the public cloud – TechCrunch
Click to expand...




smoke665 said:


> RVT1K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RVT1K said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember hearing/reading somewhere that once computer graphics became powerful enough, there would no longer be a need for real (human) actors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That day is already here, look at films like Star Wars, Pirates of the Caribbean, Tron, Terminator, Abyss, Avatar................the list goes on and on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't those done by digitizing over an existing (and very real) actor?
> As opposed to creating an "actor" that is a complete fabrication in the digital domain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again where is the line it's a meld of  real, animation, and AI generated. Supposedly the film Avatar was about 60% CGI,  but facial expressions were based on computer captured photos of real people.
Click to expand...


It would be nice if respondents actually familiarized themselves with this already-years old technology before making comments which are not really applicable to what is being discussed. It's amazing that some people are unaware that this exists and they don't have the experience to make comments which are factually accurate, but are filled with misconceptions based upon ideas that are years behind the times and way, way behind the state of AI technology. The real truth is that these people do not exist and are not based upon any one person and the starting point is completely empty.... nothing human. A deepfake is actually based upon a real person and is a simulation of their appearance based upon facial recognition technology. This is not about the deepfake technology, but is something else entirely. If words and terminology matter then this is not to be confused with the Deepfake technology....this is about the new technology  that allows for a 100% artificially created personage. I would encourage people to do some research, some actual web research and then consider what this really means, rather than base your comments on 25 year old capabilities in which you need to have a person and you use Photoshop to manipulate them. This is not about Photoshopping, this is something entirely different. Go back to the orginal Source video or go to the website this is not a real person and have a look. This is not about the movie Avatar. This is not about Adobe keeping track of how you like to edit photos.

This is not about digitizing over an image of an already-existing actor or model.

This is not the same thing as a deepfake, in pretty much the same way an Ansel Adams shot of Yosemite is different from a postcard that was taken in Yosemite, or in the way a portrait is different from a snapshot. The deepfake technology is the ability to take someone's likeness based upon the real person, often a celebrity  but not necessarily, and to create photo-realistic images of them:this is something entirely different. I am amazed that some of you cannot seem to understand that this is not based on Old ideas of photoshopping but this done by a super powerful computer or GAN.

Go to the website this person does not exist and have a look for yourself. Don't make assumptions that these images are low quality, because they are not. They are extremely photo-realistic and very high quality. And were created with no actual people involved in front of any camera at any time. These are 100% artificially created "people"... the deepfake is a false representation of a real person based upon multiple images being analyzed this is a very important distinction such as the difference between snapshot and portrait.


----------



## Derrel

Go to the website this person does not exist. See what a GAN can do.

If you think that these photos are low quality you are sadly mistaken.


----------



## Derrel

Snapshot versus photograph. Deepfake versus this. Terminology matters and not just the state of the end result: yes both might be "fake ". But what one has as its concept is creating a fake photographic or video rendering of an actually-existing person, while the other uses extreme computing power to create a virtual person...

Terminology matters. I'll leave you all to your little snapshots... I mean photographs...


----------



## vintagesnaps

But look at the backgrounds, they're all over the place; so is the color/WB quality, etc. Compared to the example Zulu posted where there's not much background and it's black. Why would someone doing computerized images make those backgrounds or make them look like lousy cell phone pictures? unless I guess they want that look.

I don't know, was there a particular stock agency doing this? or more than one? How do we know if such companies are legit or might they have been stealing photos for years? (and just saying the photos are completely computer generated). 

There are companies calling themselves 'stock' when they just provide a place for people to post their photos and it seems like they'll take just about anything. I don't know if there's any way to be sure photos on those type stock sites aren't posting photos that are stolen, that were edited from other's pictures, etc.


----------



## cgw

Who'd buy this fembot stuff? Top model agencies scout eccentricities, look-wise, not homogeneity--real or manufactured. That's what their top-shelf clients want. Just look at the various Vogue editions or the NYT fashion supplements. Nothing generic there.


----------



## TWX

cgw said:


> Who'd buy this fembot stuff? Top agencies scout eccentricities, look-wise, not homogeneity--real or manufactured. That's what their top-shelf clients want. Just look at the various Vogue editions or the NYT fashion supplements. Weird $hit.


Well, he's dead now, but Robert Palmer seemed to go for something of a fem-bot look in his music videos, especially in, "Simply Irresistible."  That's just the first one that immediately came to mind.

There's also the situation where the desire is to feature extremely young looking models, but actually using real models might be legally questionable if there's some kind of depiction of undress of a minor.  The use of a computer-generated, AI-generated model _might_ be less problematic.


----------



## VidThreeNorth

zulu42 said:


> This link was posted here before. Can't remember who.
> 
> Complete AI generation. No composites, retouch, etc.
> This Person Does Not Exist



The site was mentioned in the video, but it is a "demonstration" site -- not a business.  The point of this video is that apparently, now there are businesses.


----------



## cgw

TWX said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who'd buy this fembot stuff? Top agencies scout eccentricities, look-wise, not homogeneity--real or manufactured. That's what their top-shelf clients want. Just look at the various Vogue editions or the NYT fashion supplements. Weird $hit.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, he's dead now, but Robert Palmer seemed to go for something of a fem-bot look in his music videos, especially in, "Simply Irresistible."  That's just the first one that immediately came to mind.
> 
> There's also the situation where the desire is to feature extremely young looking models, but actually using real models might be legally questionable if there's some kind of depiction of undress of a minor.  The use of a computer-generated, AI-generated model _might_ be less problematic.
Click to expand...


Check out his "Addicted to Love" video from 1986(?). The "Palmer Girls" were the real deal who got the work on the strength of their modeling books. Not a bad choice...


----------



## Grandpa Ron

I do not see what the issue is. Centuries before the camera, artist were painting faces that did not exist.

Look at the classic West painting of  "The Death of Wolfe".  Are all those faces real or created by the artist?

Technology is doing what it always does. make the task easier. Instead of brush and canvas, we have keyboard and mouse.

I got suspicious, when I saw the babies roller skating years ago in a bottles water commercial.


----------



## OldManJim

Theft of images is a real concern; that's why I only make crappy images - nobody wants to steal them!


----------



## K9Kirk

I'm just afraid someone will put the presidents head on my body and say orange photographer bad.


----------



## sunnywilson09

I have had a battle with a stock image group who wanted to use one of my images. How they got to see it I don’t know


----------

