3 ms·

Whenever a DALL-E/Stable Diffusion like model but for video comes out... The CP thing is going to open up a can of worms. IIRC, the Supreme Court already uphe

by nerdix 4y ago

Whenever a DALL-E/Stable Diffusion like model but for video comes out... The CP thing is going to open up a can of worms. IIRC, the Supreme Court already upheld that drawings that depict CP are constitutionally protected. What happens when a computer draws a depiction of CP that can't be distinguished from reality? I guess it's protected but it'll make it much harder to identify real CP.

jrockway 4y ago
I think the jury is out on simulated CSAM. There was a law against it in the 90s, that got overturned, then they made a new law, and someone has been prosecuted by it over their imported manga collection. I would certainly err on the side of thinking it's illegal in the US right now.
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
There have been convictions based on child heads photoshopped onto adult bodies. Generative images will be treated the same. The lack of a real victim is treated as immaterial. All it needs is sufficient realism to be believable.
- nerdix 4y ago
  Was it a real child's head? Because, in that case, the actual child depicted in the photo could be seen as the victim. Especially if its a convincing fake.
  - rightbyte 4y ago
    The child is a victim of atleast slander right?
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > > the Supreme Court already upheld that drawings that depict CP are constitutionally protected. > There have been convictions based on child heads photoshopped onto adult bodies. Generative images will be treated the same. The former suggests the latter is not true, unless it is generative images provably using the likeness of an actual specific child. (Of course, the Supreme Court can go against its prior precedent, but assuming it will do so is not usually the best prediction unless there have been some very clear signals.)
- jasonfarnon 4y ago
  This is an older supreme court case (90s/2000s I think) but my recollection is that you've got it totally backwards--the decision turned on whether or not there is a real victim. Their reasoning was that videos of real kids create a market for the exploitation of real kids, which is a harm that overcomes first amendment protections, whereas depictions need not (their reasoning, not mine). I don't believe verisimilitude was even addressed. Now, if you mean a depiction's similarity to a particular, real child, I'm not sure how that would play out (or if it was addressed in the decision).

by nerdix 4y ago

jrockway 4y ago

I think the jury is out on simulated CSAM. There was a law against it in the 90s, that got overturned, then they made a new law, and someone has been prosecuted by it over their imported manga collection. I would certainly err on the side of thinking it's illegal in the US right now.

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago

There have been convictions based on child heads photoshopped onto adult bodies. Generative images will be treated the same. The lack of a real victim is treated as immaterial. All it needs is sufficient realism to be believable.

nerdix 4y ago
Was it a real child's head? Because, in that case, the actual child depicted in the photo could be seen as the victim. Especially if its a convincing fake.
- rightbyte 4y ago
  The child is a victim of atleast slander right?
dragonwriter 4y ago
> > the Supreme Court already upheld that drawings that depict CP are constitutionally protected. > There have been convictions based on child heads photoshopped onto adult bodies. Generative images will be treated the same. The former suggests the latter is not true, unless it is generative images provably using the likeness of an actual specific child. (Of course, the Supreme Court can go against its prior precedent, but assuming it will do so is not usually the best prediction unless there have been some very clear signals.)
jasonfarnon 4y ago
This is an older supreme court case (90s/2000s I think) but my recollection is that you've got it totally backwards--the decision turned on whether or not there is a real victim. Their reasoning was that videos of real kids create a market for the exploitation of real kids, which is a harm that overcomes first amendment protections, whereas depictions need not (their reasoning, not mine). I don't believe verisimilitude was even addressed. Now, if you mean a depiction's similarity to a particular, real child, I'm not sure how that would play out (or if it was addressed in the decision).