| Hypothesis |
celebs care about authenticity of their content, and will have challenges proving it with explosion in deep fakes and AI |
| ICP |
People who have a known brand and following |
- athletes
- actors
- politicians
- famous people
- voice actors |
| TAM | Hard to tell |
| Growth | |
| Timing | due to deep-fakes, AI, mis-info, etc |
| Business model: | - fee per month of service
- % fee for each content authenticated
- |
| Competitors | |
| Scale effects | word of mouth about celeb networks, agencies buying for all their represented clients, seeing authentication will get others interested in acquiring auth. |
| Structural inefficiency | |
| Critical assumptions | - bad actors exist to create / abuse AI and famous people, for their own benefit
- celebs want direct control over their security, rather than relying on media networks or community-members to auth
|
Digital Twin
- a replica of an actor (image, video, audio) that can be manipulated at will
Problems
Because of deepfake and AI, an artists’s identity (aka IP) is now freely copyable, editable and transferable. Assets = face, voice, image, video, music, art etc.
The ‘right of publicity’ is being violated. This is the right to control the commercial value of your name, likeness, voice, signature, or other personal identifying traits that are unique to you.
Because of this,
- Who owns the rights to the digital twin?
- How will the digital twin be used? Can usage of twin be contained?
- Safe and unsafe content created
- Brand risk: on-brand or off-brand scenarios
- How will digital-twin be monetized?
- Govt legislation may be slow to adopt to post-AI world
- Signing away digital twin rights could
- lower lower income (if rights are acquired an actor becomes famous in later years).
- increase income (for more [currently] famous celebs)
Current State:
- Intellectual Property & Rights are managed via legal paperwork. Legal paper is used to protect/enforce as much as possible. Also, tech didn’t exist to crease scenarios that are a violation of agreement