5 ms·

Why fight the algorithm? Instead, grab a photo from here: https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ Then post it online and clai

by kinard 5y ago

Why fight the algorithm? Instead, grab a photo from here: https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ Then post it online and claim it as your own. That way nobody gets hurt and you can move on. Should you have to do this? No of course not, but sometimes it's easier to win a small battle. Good luck.

Clampower 5y ago
Are the images from thispersondoesnot unique per page visit or do they ever show the same one twice? What about copyright? Is there any implications to using these photos?
- input_sh 5y ago
  According to the interview with the author of the site (https://www.inverse.com/article/53414-this-person-does-not-exist-creator-interview https://www.inverse.com/article/53414-this-person-does-not-e...), they're unique per page visit. As for copyright, who knows. No legal precedent that I know of.
- Robadob 5y ago
  If I refresh the page twice in quick succession, the same image comes up. By refreshing on my pc/phone at the same time, I managed to get the same image come up too. So it's probably seeded by time.
- dn3500 5y ago
  Under the Berne convention all creative works are protected by copyright. And I see no license notice. So it would be a violation of copyright to copy one of these to your own web site. Unless there is some quirk of law that says these aren't creative works because they were generated by algorithm or something like that. But I bet if you asked permission and explained what it's for you would get an approval.
- JoblessWonder 5y ago
  The source code from Nvidia is covered by this[0] license... which includes a section on derivative work: > 3.2 Derivative Works. You may specify that additional or different terms apply to the use, reproduction, and distribution of your derivative works of the Work (“Your Terms”) only if (a) Your Terms provide that the use limitation in Section 3.3 applies to your derivative works, and (b) you identify the specific derivative works that are subject to Your Terms. Notwithstanding Your Terms, this License (including the redistribution requirements in Section 3.1) will continue to apply to the Work itself. > 3.3 Use Limitation. The Work and any derivative works thereof only may be used or intended for use non-commercially. The Work or derivative works thereof may be used or intended for use by Nvidia or its affiliates commercially or non-commercially. As used herein, “non-commercially” means for research or evaluation purposes only. [0] https://nvlabs.github.io/stylegan2/license.html https://nvlabs.github.io/stylegan2/license.html
achairapart 5y ago
Does it have to be a photo of an actual human? Why not a work of graphic/art? A unicorn perhaps?
- itronitron 5y ago
  I think that's a better option as the 'thispersondoesnotexist' images can't be guaranteed to not actually look exactly like someone.
  - _0ffh 5y ago
    That could always happen, no matter how you generate the photo, but it's all but impossible that they'd also have the matching name.
- yvoschaap 5y ago
  Pretty sure the Google algo would feature a isHumanDisplayed() for the photo's that would qualify.
  - sumosudo 5y ago
    From what I can tell, Google engineers would actually write `isObjectDisplayed("Human")`
  - achairapart 5y ago
    But is Google looking for a human or it just picks the first homonymous human as a poorly automated fallback because there is no other data available? As far as I know, this worked at least for people like Banksy, Vincent van Gogh, the Zodiac killer and a few others.
belter 5y ago
Why fight the algorithm indeed. Post this photo in several sites: https://static01.nyt.com/images/blogs/bits/posts/google_brinpage.533.jpg https://static01.nyt.com/images/blogs/bits/posts/google_brin... and call it Andrea.
dom96 5y ago
Off-topic, but wow, some of the images this site generates sure are creepy. One example: https://imgur.com/Z382rtF https://imgur.com/Z382rtF
- joshxyz 5y ago
  thats a fucking nightmare haha
shaggyfrog 5y ago
> That way nobody gets hurt and you can move on. Until you generate a photo that actually does look like someone, and that person becomes targeted as a result.
- anchpop 5y ago
  looks like someone with the same name as the author? that seems kind of unlikely. I mean at that point you’re advocating for the author to not have any identity, even a pseudonym, associated with her book, that way no one can possibly be confused
  - shaggyfrog 5y ago
    > looks like someone with the same name as the author? that seems kind of unlikely Unlikely, yes, but not impossible. > I mean at that point you’re advocating for the author to not have any identity I am not advocating that at all. Please don't put words in my mouth.

by kinard 5y ago

Clampower 5y ago

Are the images from thispersondoesnot unique per page visit or do they ever show the same one twice? What about copyright? Is there any implications to using these photos?

input_sh 5y ago
According to the interview with the author of the site (https://www.inverse.com/article/53414-this-person-does-not-exist-creator-interview https://www.inverse.com/article/53414-this-person-does-not-e...), they're unique per page visit. As for copyright, who knows. No legal precedent that I know of.
Robadob 5y ago
If I refresh the page twice in quick succession, the same image comes up. By refreshing on my pc/phone at the same time, I managed to get the same image come up too. So it's probably seeded by time.
dn3500 5y ago
Under the Berne convention all creative works are protected by copyright. And I see no license notice. So it would be a violation of copyright to copy one of these to your own web site. Unless there is some quirk of law that says these aren't creative works because they were generated by algorithm or something like that. But I bet if you asked permission and explained what it's for you would get an approval.
JoblessWonder 5y ago
The source code from Nvidia is covered by this[0] license... which includes a section on derivative work: > 3.2 Derivative Works. You may specify that additional or different terms apply to the use, reproduction, and distribution of your derivative works of the Work (“Your Terms”) only if (a) Your Terms provide that the use limitation in Section 3.3 applies to your derivative works, and (b) you identify the specific derivative works that are subject to Your Terms. Notwithstanding Your Terms, this License (including the redistribution requirements in Section 3.1) will continue to apply to the Work itself. > 3.3 Use Limitation. The Work and any derivative works thereof only may be used or intended for use non-commercially. The Work or derivative works thereof may be used or intended for use by Nvidia or its affiliates commercially or non-commercially. As used herein, “non-commercially” means for research or evaluation purposes only. [0] https://nvlabs.github.io/stylegan2/license.html https://nvlabs.github.io/stylegan2/license.html

achairapart 5y ago

Does it have to be a photo of an actual human? Why not a work of graphic/art? A unicorn perhaps?

itronitron 5y ago
I think that's a better option as the 'thispersondoesnotexist' images can't be guaranteed to not actually look exactly like someone.
- _0ffh 5y ago
  That could always happen, no matter how you generate the photo, but it's all but impossible that they'd also have the matching name.
yvoschaap 5y ago
Pretty sure the Google algo would feature a isHumanDisplayed() for the photo's that would qualify.
- sumosudo 5y ago
  From what I can tell, Google engineers would actually write `isObjectDisplayed("Human")`
- achairapart 5y ago
  But is Google looking for a human or it just picks the first homonymous human as a poorly automated fallback because there is no other data available? As far as I know, this worked at least for people like Banksy, Vincent van Gogh, the Zodiac killer and a few others.

belter 5y ago

Why fight the algorithm indeed. Post this photo in several sites: https://static01.nyt.com/images/blogs/bits/posts/google_brinpage.533.jpg https://static01.nyt.com/images/blogs/bits/posts/google_brin... and call it Andrea.

dom96 5y ago

Off-topic, but wow, some of the images this site generates sure are creepy. One example: https://imgur.com/Z382rtF https://imgur.com/Z382rtF

joshxyz 5y ago
thats a fucking nightmare haha

shaggyfrog 5y ago

> That way nobody gets hurt and you can move on. Until you generate a photo that actually does look like someone, and that person becomes targeted as a result.

anchpop 5y ago
looks like someone with the same name as the author? that seems kind of unlikely. I mean at that point you’re advocating for the author to not have any identity, even a pseudonym, associated with her book, that way no one can possibly be confused
- shaggyfrog 5y ago
  > looks like someone with the same name as the author? that seems kind of unlikely Unlikely, yes, but not impossible. > I mean at that point you’re advocating for the author to not have any identity I am not advocating that at all. Please don't put words in my mouth.