Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Not convinced by this. Camera sensors have measurable individual noise, if you record RAW that won't be fakeable without prior access to the device. You'd have a straightforward case for defamation if your real footage were falsely labeled, and it would be easy to demonstrate in court.


> Camera sensors have measurable individual noise, if you record RAW that won't be fakeable without prior access to the device.

Which doesn't help you unless non-AI images are all required to be RAW. Moreover, someone who is trying to fabricate something could obviously obtain access to a real camera to emulate.

> You'd have a straightforward case for defamation if your real footage were falsely labeled, and it would be easy to demonstrate in court.

Defamation typically requires you to prove that the person making the claim knew it was false. They'll, of course, claim that they thought it was actually fake. Also, most people don't have the resources to sue YouTube for their screw ups.


Moreover, someone who is trying to fabricate something could obviously obtain access to a real camera to emulate.

Yes, but not to your camera. Sorry for not phrasing it more clearly: individual cameras have measurable noise signatures distinct from otherwise identical models.

On the lawsuit side, you just need to aver that you are the author of the original footage and are willing to prove it. As long as you are in possession of both the device and the footage, you have two pieces of solid evidence vs. someone elses feels/half-assed AI detection algorithm. There will be no shortage of tech-savvy media lawyers willing to take this case on contingency.


> Yes, but not to your camera.

But who is the "you" in this case? There can be footage of you that wasn't taken with your camera. The person falsifying it would just claim they used their own camera. Which they would have access to ahead of time in order to incorporate its fingerprint into the video before publishing it.


Most consumer cameras require access menus to enable raw because dealing with RAW is a truly terrible user experience. The vast majority of image/video sensors out there don't even support raw recordings, out of the box.


Anyone with a mid-to-upper range phone or better-than-entry level DSLR/bridge camera has access to this, and anyone who uses that camera to make a living (eg shooting footage of protests) understands how to use RAW. I have friends who are complete technophobes but have figured this out because they want to be able to sell their footage from time to time.


"Dealing with raw" is one of the major reasons to use an actual camera these days.


Unfortunately video codecs love to crush that fine detail.


DMCA abuse begs to differ.


That's because of safe harbor provisions, which don't exist in this context.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: