THE SENATE UNANIMOUSLY passed a bipartisan bill to provide recourse to victims of porn deepfakes — or sexually-explicit, non-consensual images created with artificial intelligence.
The legislation, called the Disrupt Explicit Forged Images and Non-Consensual Edits (DEFIANCE) Act — passed in Congress’ upper chamber on Tuesday. The legislation has been led by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), as well as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in the House.
The legislation would amend the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to allow people to sue those who produce, distribute, or receive the deepfake pornography, if they “knew or recklessly disregarded” the fact that the victim did not consent to those images.
The text of the bill specifies
So it’s not trying to chase specific implementations but using a “reasonable person” test (which I would argue is a good thing)
There are billions of people. Find the right one, and a “reasonable person” could not tell the difference.
Image a law that said you cannot name your baby a name if someone else’s name starts with the same letter. After 26 names, all future names would be illegal. The law essentially would make naming babies illegal.
The “alphabet” in this case is the distict visual depiction of all people. As long as the visual innumeration of “reasonable people” is small enough, it essentially makes any generation illegal. Conversely, if “reasonable people” granulated fine enough, it makes avoiding prosecution trivial by adding minor conflicting details.
You should maybe do a little more reading on the word “reasonable.”
“The right one” according to whom? There are two sides to a court case. The opposition can find all kinds of ways to show that person is not reasonable since they can’t recognize a very good simulation of someone’s face, just like they can show someone who is shortsighted didn’t see the car crash like they said they did.
So if I make AI porn of a celebrity but give her a face tattoo saying AI generated then its legal?
Doubt it, a reasonable person will generally be able to tell if you’re obviously taking the piss with the law. Feel free to try it and let us know how you get on though.
But that is not what the bill says, the reasonable person is not evaluating my intent, it’s evaluating if the video is “indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual” which in this case it would be very distinguishable since the individual does not have said face tattoo.
How does your legal team compare to Scarlett Johansen’s? There’s your answer where the line is.
We’re not talking about Scarlets team here, what about Jane Doe?
When does parody/fair use come into play? If it’s a caricature of the person is that okay?
Defamation is not parody. Fake porn of someone is absolutely defamation.
I can’t legally make a “parody” of you but you’re a pedophile.
Edit: Since there seems to be some confusion, I am not calling them a pedophile, I’m saying I can’t make some sort of fake of them as a pedophile and call it a parody.
I asked a question and you called me a pedophile. Bit of an over reaction?
I’m literally doing the opposite of calling you a pedophile. I’m saying it would be illegal to call you a pedophile and claim it’s a parody. That’s not an excuse for defamation.
And I said that because I am assuming you are not a pedophile.
I’m not sure why you didn’t get that.
A bit of unfortunate wording there. :) I had to go back and reread it slowly in order to understand what you meant.
Ironically, the face tattoo might convince some people it’s real, since AI has a well known problem with writing coherent text.
I don’t think that’s what it means.
A depiction which is authentic might refer to provenance.
If someone authorises me to make a pornographic depiction of them, surely that’s not illegal. It’s authentic.
So it’s not a question of whether the depiction appears to be AI generated, it’s really about whether a reasonable person would conclude that the image is a depiction of a specific person.
That means tattoos, extra limbs, third books, et cetera won’t side step this law.
So the old libel trick where you give the character a small dick should work?