Midjourney Bans Images of Celebrities

I have often used Midjourney to create images of classic movie stars.  It has been fun to resurrect Cary Grant, making him look as charming and elegant as ever in a stylish new suit.  It has been fun to invent parody mash-ups with Hollywood legends.  It has been fun to use these images to explore the alternate casting of famous roles.  Imagine, for instance, Grant playing Harold Hill in The Music Man.

Or Grant as Norman Bates.

The program wasn't flawless in capturing a person's likeness, but each new version of the program showed great improvement.   

My high hopes for Midjourney were recently shattered when I learned that Midjourney has taken strong measures to stop its program from generating accurate images of celebrities.  I had to go to a Midjourney competitor, Grok, to create these images of Grant.  Why did Midjourney do this?  It's the obvious reason.  Gullible people were fooled by the fakes, which created a major headache for the company.  

To start, Pixar became upset over fake Pixar ads generated by AI programs.  

How could anyone think that these were real films?

Microsoft quickly blocked the term "Pixar" from being entered into its image generator and those users who try to use it are now shown a message saying that the prompt is against the company's policies. 

Accurate images of Hitler became a problem.  The Midjourney people became horrified that their program was being used to create highly offensive Hitler memes.  So, they promptly banned references to Hitler in image descriptions.  Strangely, they also banned any reference to the dictator's distinctive toothbrush moustache.  Presumably, they were worried that you could suggest Hitler by putting that mustache on anything from a cat to a potato.  

Of course, without the toothbrush mustache, it was no longer possible to generate images of Charlie Chaplin and Oliver Hardy, whose appearances were very much dependent on that unique smudge of facial hair. 

You give a child blocks.  Most children will stack the blocks to build a tower.  Some will sort the blocks to create a variety of shapes.  The blocks allow children to develop spatial awareness, fine motor skills, hand-eye coordination, problem-solving abilities, and creativity.  A few unruly children will chuck a block at another child.  But that doesn't mean that you should ban blocks.  You punish the wrongdoers.  That's how it has to be.  

And then came the AI-generated images of Taylor Swift.  First, a deepfake of Swift was used to promote a Le Creuset cookware giveaway.  

Then, a man disseminated sexually explicit AI images of Swift across several social media platforms.  These images were viewed by 47 million people before the man's social media accounts were suspended.

There were others like this.

Someone ever paired up Swift with Hitler.

It wouldn't have likely been a problem if the images of Swift were as harmless as this one.

AP News reported:

Brittany Spanos, a senior writer at Rolling Stone who teaches a course on Swift at New York University, says Swift's fans are quick to mobilize in support of their artist, especially those who take their fandom very seriously and in situations of wrongdoing.

So, the good times were over.  It became clear that AI-generated images of real people could be manipulated for unethical purposes, including misinformation and defamation.  AI could produce manipulated images that place an actor in a false context, having them endorse a controversial political position, engaging in illegal activities, or participating in offensive content.  This could mislead the public and damage the actor's reputation.  Famous entertainers have certain rights to their likenesses and could argue that a person infringed on their rights if they used their likeness without authorization.    

Midjourney and a number of competitors simply decided that it would be in their best interest to avoid deepfake controversies.  

But why create a general ban?  Most artistic reinterpretations of celebrities fall under "fair use."  This certainly applies if the artwork is not used for commercial purposes, if the artwork is not used to create a false narrative, and if the artwork in no way damages an actor's reputation.  You can't outlaw fan art.  I know a woman on Twitter who creates intricate pencil portraits of famous people.  She once did a great portrait of John Wayne.  Should this be illegal?  

Parody or fan art hardly violates the rights of a famous actor.  A platform can easily solve this problem by prominently labeling an image to indicate that the image is AI-generated.  And, again, punishment of misuse is the best remedy.

Midjourney now encourages users to describe generic or inspired characters rather than try to directly replicate a real individual.  So, you end up with a generic Cary Grant-inspired character like this.  It isn't much, is it?

Grok is now the only source for AI images of celebrities.  At my request, the program generated these images of Laurel and Hardy.

YouTuber Nerdrotic had the idea of dressing up famous old actors as famous old superheroes.  It's Cary Grant under Batman's cowl.   

I added these images to Nerdrotic's collection.

I tried to get Grok to generate an image of The Three Stooges as trial attorneys.  It didn't work out well.