There's a gray area where someone consented regrettably, say as a brief stint on OnlyFans until they realized how pictures travel. I wonder how Meta will rule on those
Using a technology like this for removing leaked private photos is one thing. Using it to enforce simple copyright is a whole other matter. If this were being deployed as a copyright enforcement tool, absolutely everyone here would be livid.
So, the question then is, if its used to censor a nudge image, but that image had been originally uploaded with consent, is that a matter of privacy, or copyright? And if it's merely a matter of copyright, is it appropriate to use this technology in that context?
Edit: the problem there is, if something under NDA finds its way into public view, and there are several different parties that could have leaked it (i.e. the leaker 8s not identified), what actions can then be taken? It's pretty much unenforceable at that point to anyone who didn't sign the agreement. Hence the need for this new system, I guess.
If you buy a painting from an artist, or a print from a photographer, can you turn around and scan that art and sell hundreds of copies? Usually not, you typically have purchased an individual copy of a work but not to make your own copies and redistribute.
I don't think any automated process can determine what is okay or not. This isn't a problem I think we'll have easy answers for in tech and care must be taken to make sure that attempting to fix it using technical measures doesn't invite other abuses or infringe on other rights. Blindly accepting hashes and blocking them seems like it could make things very easy for social media companies but at a cost to the rest of us.
Most people wouldn't think so, but it technically is. If an algorithm spots the painting in the background and matches it to a known hash it could block the post automatically. If it didn't, than anyone could print out revenge porn and tape it to a wall, photograph it, and facebook's system would never remove it. The point of revenge porn isn't to reproduce and sell perfect 1:1 copies of a copyrighted work, but to harass someone and less than perfect copies will do that job very well.
It's not that I think any system must be perfect or else it's useless, but others have already pointed out how easy this system could be to game to remove all kinds of other content, youtube's efforts with their similar "Content ID" system shows us that these automated systems will have negative impacts for many innocent people, and these systems are becoming increasingly common (for example, apple scanning your personal devices to generate hashes to match against photos of child abuse) so it really is important that companies get this right and protect their users. Especially for a company like facebook who is doing it so that they can avoid paying for the kind of human oversight which is actually needed to combat the problem. This seems like a poorly thought out scheme that could have major consequences for users but let's Facebook off the hook because they've doing "something".
And they would be correct.
Depends on specific details and jurisdiction. Here, if someone commissions a work from an artist (instead of buying copy of their existing work), then transfer of copyright ownership to the buyer is implicitly a part of the agreement.
Technologically that would be very difficult to implement and guarantee, but I'd imagine they would rule in favor of the creator in that case.
I don't think a user should be banned or penalized for sharing said image since they may be unaware the model is trying to retract it. But no reason not to try respecting the creator's wishes.
An actor who performs in an embarrassingly bad movie might wish they could refuse to let their work be used after the fact, but they already signed away their right to retract their work.
An OnlyFans model is also the creator of the content though, so they might have more leverage depending on OF's legal terms. If they still own the rights to all media they create and distribute through OF, then they could petition for removal based on DMCA or something (I'm not a lawyer but it sounds plausible).
Morally, I hope FB can help regretful adult models remove content of themselves if they don't want it to exist anymore. But practically, that will be very difficult to guarantee.
That's what OnlyFans images are.
If the performer owns the IP then they are completely within their rights to remove it where others infringes them. Whether that’s to protect their own commercial operation or because they don’t want those images in public anymore.
It's probably not technically a "gray area" since the platform can't ensure the content doesn't escape. But certainly, content creators should be aware that withdrawing consent doesn't mean their content is suddenly secured.