Brought to you by
Adobe,
BBC,
Intel,
Microsoft,
Sony to keep "online misinformation" (AI-generated content) in check with what amounts to DRM for digital media. It's pretty easy to get spooked by all of this.
Now to be fair, it's an open standard, so maybe the comparison to DRM isn't entirely accurate. They also claim it's opt-in, but I doubt it will stay that way. As the video
>>20955 mentioned, Steam is already cracking down on games with AI-generated content so requiring C2PA seems like a logical next step for them, as with other web services.
Here's the technical specification by the way (perhaps someone can upload it):
https://c2pa.org/specifications/specifications/1.3/specs/_attachments/C2PA_Specification.pdfHere are a few key parts from the introduction (chapter 1):
>C2PA specifications SHOULD NOT provide value judgments about whether a given set of provenance data is 'good' or 'bad,' merely whether the assertions included within can be validated as associated with the underlying asset, correctly formed, and free from tampering.>The identity of a signatory is not necessarily a human actor, and the identity presented may be a pseudonym, completely anonymous, or pertain to a service or trusted hardware device with its own identity, including an application running inside such a service or trusted hardware.>The creators and publishers of the media assets always have control over whether provenance data is included as well as what specific pieces of data are included.Another thing to take note of is chapter 18 which lays out the team's assessment of the "Threats and Security Considerations" and "Harms, Misuse, and Abuse". They basically say they will address these concerns sometime in the future. Pretty unsatisfactory in my opinion.
Here's a super simple explanation by CAI (a partner organization) for those of you who need it:
https://contentauthenticity.org/how-it-worksHere's a guide on how not to do a case study (pro-t
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.