Paid Members Carbomb Posted January 9, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted January 9, 2023 (edited) In terms of content, I'd be interested if it was written by someone like Bob Mortimer, who's good at that sort of thing, but no-one else. From an industry perspective, I'm wondering if they found some way around image usage copyrights and trademarks, as most celebs these days tend to "lock down" their images as soon as they get anything of a media profile, or if they simply paid out a bomb in image usage fees. Edited January 9, 2023 by Carbomb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Curious Orange Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 They'll be claiming the show is covered by the exemption in copyright law that allows limited/fair use for parody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wordsfromlee Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 It’s written by Spencer Jones who’s stand up and TV show ‘The Mind of Herbert Clunkerdunk’ I really enjoy but I can easily see he wouldn’t be for everyone as it’s very surreal stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted January 9, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted January 9, 2023 4 minutes ago, The Curious Orange said: They'll be claiming the show is covered by the exemption in copyright law that allows limited/fair use for parody. Fair enough. Could see this heading for a lawsuit in the nearish future, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Hannibal Scorch Posted January 9, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted January 9, 2023 26 minutes ago, Carbomb said: Fair enough. Could see this heading for a lawsuit in the nearish future, though. South Park did it first Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 If nothing else, even if it's as shit as it sounds, at least it'll put this technology in front of people in an honest fashion and help them understand it exists, or that it's possibly more convincing than they'd assumed, making them less likely to be conned by more (willfully) sinister deepfakes online. That achieves nothing for the programme makers but it's a slight silver lining for society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Jazzy G Posted January 9, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted January 9, 2023 I'd have a lot more faith in it if it was on the BBC or Channel 4 than ITV. I guess it'll live and die on how good the deepfakes are, and the writing. If the main crux of the show's humour is "look at these celebrities in mundane situations" then I can see it getting old, fast. If there's some surreal, subversive humour there as well then it might not be as bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 15 minutes ago, Uncle Zeb said: If nothing else, even if it's as shit as it sounds, at least it'll put this technology in front of people in an honest fashion and help them understand it exists, or that it's possibly more convincing than they'd assumed, making them less likely to be conned by more (willfully) sinister deepfakes online. That achieves nothing for the programme makers but it's a slight silver lining for society. I think it could have the opposite effect too. People would dismiss genuine clips as deep fakes if it didn’t suit their pre conceived agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merzbow Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 (edited) I've seen that happen, likely not helped by The Capture which told a story about deepfakes used in the news. Edited January 9, 2023 by Merzbow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted January 9, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted January 9, 2023 9 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: I think it could have the opposite effect too. People would dismiss genuine clips as deep fakes if it didn’t suit their pre conceived agenda. If we thought the Alex Jones types were bad before, they'll be even worse now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 45 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: I think it could have the opposite effect too. People would dismiss genuine clips as deep fakes if it didn’t suit their pre conceived agenda. I think the people who'd naively mistake a deepfake for the real thing outnumber those who'd stubbornly insist a real and well substantiated video is fake, so it's still a net positive as far as I'm concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 47 minutes ago, Uncle Zeb said: I think the people who'd naively mistake a deepfake for the real thing outnumber those who'd stubbornly insist a real and well substantiated video is fake, so it's still a net positive as far as I'm concerned. They are the sort who refuse facts as opposed to refute facts. It’s the natural progression of fake news and alternative facts. To be honest, my worry is the supposed need for “Balance”. Presenting something demonstrably false in equal standing to something true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted January 9, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted January 9, 2023 you don't have to go deep into the conspiracysphere to find people that already believe in all kinds of mad sci-fi technology around politicians and celebrities - there's already been shit from QAnon quarters that Joe Biden's speeches have been deepfakes, and before deepfakes you'd get the David Icke nutters making claims about clones or body doubles, and so on. It's all moot, really - these people aren't swayed by evidence one way or the other, and are more than happy to reject the evidence of their own eyes and ears if it's not what they want to see and hear. Giving them an additional bit of bullshit to hang their hat on isn't going to change their beliefs. I think deepfakes themselves have the potential to be far more dangerous and destructive than people claiming the real thing is fake ever will - because people already claim that the real thing is fake, whether that's on the level of "you can't believe anything this politician says, it's all fake" or "they have a secret body double because the real president is dead" all the way through to "we live in the Matrix". Fake deepfakes following somewhere in the middle isn't going to make any meaningful difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 Remember when conspiracy theories used to be fun? Maybe not so much if you’re Jewish but silly little water cooler topics like Kubrick filmed the moon landings in a studio. Now they’re all dangerous as fuck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted January 9, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted January 9, 2023 2 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: Remember when conspiracy theories used to be fun? Maybe not so much if you’re Jewish but silly little water cooler topics like Kubrick filmed the moon landings in a studio. Now they’re all dangerous as fuck. It's something I think about a lot. About ten years ago, me and a mate were talking about starting a conspiracy theory podcast, because we'd always just send each other the maddest stuff we could find online. Just whiling away the hours at work on the weirdest bits of the internet, finding the most outlandish nonsense we could. It died off after the Boston Marathon bombing, because suddenly we were online and even outside of our usual weirder corners of the web there were people playing armchair detective and drawing circles around random people in photos saying that they must be responsible because <insert long-winded but ultimately meaningless explanation here>. And that very quickly evolved into all the usual bollocks, that led to me instigating a rule on my Facebook that I'd unfriend anyone who unironically used the term "false flag" because I got so fucking disgusted of ever reading it anywhere. That's the point when it all stopped being fun for me, seeing it all unfurl in real time, and seeing how deeply unpleasant everything around it was. Before long you realise that, even if the people buying into it aren't aware of it, you don't have to chip away at any given conspiracy theory for long before you get down to antisemitism somewhere under the surface - it's Jews all the way down. These days, I'm more of the belief that all conspiracy theories are, in their way, as dangerous as each other. Not believing in the Moon landings means that you're prepared to believe in government-level cover-ups on an unimaginable scale, and that you're prepared to disbelieve the word of experts, scientists, and so on. If you believe that JFK wasn't killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, then you're accepting not only another colossal cover-up, but also that there are forces at work in either American or international government that are well above the office of the President, and have the motive and the means to have the President killed and leave no paper trail. Believing in that sort of thing is not a world-view that's going to begin or end with the Moon landing - it shouldn't naturally follow that someone who has "reasonable doubts" about whether NASA went to the Moon also believes in Bigfoot, and that people get abducted by aliens, and that there's something weird about the Pyramids, yet you often see a pattern of that kind of out-there belief, because it's never just one thing. It's not a measured questioning of the "official story", it's a complete world-view. I had a conversation with a mate of mine about 9/11 conspiracies recently, and he said something about how he didn't believe that it was an inside job, but that he would be prepared to accept that the American government were tipped off about it and didn't act. Because that's sort of compromising and meeting in the middle, it has the feel of a rational and considered position, but it's just as much a conspiracy as saying that it was entirely an inside job. By agreeing that there is a middle ground with these ideas means that on some level you're accepting them as rational and valid, but they're not two sides of an argument - one is truth, one is fiction. By conceding ground to even the most seemingly harmless or silly of them, we risk empowering all of them. To that end, I think something like Ancient Aliens or Graham Hancock's Netflix show is just as dangerous in its way as the more obviously incendiary conspiracy theories like Pizzagate. There are people I was friends with on Facebook or Instagram who were at the posh hippy end of anti-vaxxer, and those are the same people I saw praising Graham Hancock's show for being "brave" enough to question the "official story", and how "it just goes to show how little they tell us". They're not fun any more, but I think actually we probably should have done more to recognise that they were always dangerous as fuck and then maybe we wouldn't be as far in this mess as we are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.