What a weird and misleading article. I assume it was written by that "deepfake detection company Sensity" to drum up business, but it certainly doesn't seem to be well-researched.
As is, it is already illegal to use Emma Watson's "likeness" without her approval in pretty much every western country, including the EU and the Czech republic. "likeness" here means that the fake is good enough for regular people to recognize the actress.
For example, see Midler vs. Ford: http://rightofpublicity.com/pdf/cases/midler.pdf
The article continues: “Until there is a strong reason for [porn websites] to try to take them down and to filter them, I strongly believe nothing is going to happen,” Patrini says.
Obviously. That "strong reason" is called a lawsuit and is pretty easy to organize. You might even sue for punitive damages and recoup your legal costs, meaning a celebrity successfully suing might be as expensive as $350,000 per video. I'd say that is a very strong reason to take things down, if - and apparently only if - the person requesting the takedown is following legal procedures.
As is, it is already illegal to use Emma Watson's "likeness" without her approval in pretty much every western country, including the EU and the Czech republic. "likeness" here means that the fake is good enough for regular people to recognize the actress.
For example, see Midler vs. Ford: http://rightofpublicity.com/pdf/cases/midler.pdf
The article continues: “Until there is a strong reason for [porn websites] to try to take them down and to filter them, I strongly believe nothing is going to happen,” Patrini says.
Obviously. That "strong reason" is called a lawsuit and is pretty easy to organize. You might even sue for punitive damages and recoup your legal costs, meaning a celebrity successfully suing might be as expensive as $350,000 per video. I'd say that is a very strong reason to take things down, if - and apparently only if - the person requesting the takedown is following legal procedures.