I think the point that sandworm101 is trying to make is that for the medium, it was a perfect fake.
One could make the argument that due to the ubiquity of photoshop and "shooped memes," the fact that both livestreamers and TV networks regularly employ digital makeup filters, and the continued press that deepfake technology recieves -- there is no reason for any reasonable person to assume any piece digial media hasn't been substantially altered...
(especially now that the term "fake news" has become a tumour on our lexicon)
One could make all sorts of arguments, but in fact a spoof print ad for Campari and a deep fake video are not the same thing. In particular, the law does not operate based on the kinds of logic that prevails on message boards, as the previous commenter, a lawyer, must know.
In fairness, "a fake so perfect, you can't tell it's fake (other than by its content)" is the work of a trained professional. Few among us message board amateurs so effortlessly reach for the sublime.
One could make the argument that due to the ubiquity of photoshop and "shooped memes," the fact that both livestreamers and TV networks regularly employ digital makeup filters, and the continued press that deepfake technology recieves -- there is no reason for any reasonable person to assume any piece digial media hasn't been substantially altered...
(especially now that the term "fake news" has become a tumour on our lexicon)