4 ms·

If someone draws, or paints, art of you in a pose / situation you don't like; using traditional means of ink or pencil etc, are you as violated? Have you rights

If someone draws, or paints, art of you in a pose / situation you don't like; using traditional means of ink or pencil etc, are you as violated? Have you rights to redress from the artist? Why should it be different if they use a different tool to create the picture?

EA-3167 3y ago
Would those "tools" such as ink and paper produce a similar, photorealistic result? Could reasonable people mistake them for the real thing?
- sigstoat 3y ago
  look up "photorealism".
- h2odragon 3y ago
  Are you suggesting that all those photos of Abraham Lincoln nekkid from fark.com might not have been real?
- Tronno 3y ago
  I have trouble imagining a reasonable person being interested in porn containing a minor government official, let alone being confused as to its authenticity. I can't even see reasonable people being interested in genuine celebrity sex tapes. The audience for that seems limited to malicious weirdos who already have zero respect for the victim. Any influence it might have on their opinions seems irrelevant. Of course, this has no bearing on the personal violation one feels when exposed to this sort of abuse. But for deepfake porn to somehow influence public perception is hard for me to grasp. Are there any examples of real reputational damage stemming from this?
  - BoxFour 3y ago
    to say nothing of the personal feeling of violation, the individual in question seems to be a relatively young and ambitious individual, likely harboring aspirations for a more prominent political career. The potential consequences of such a revelation that “they might’ve been a pornographic actor” could give rise to a future scandal during an election. Even the slightest insinuation of involvement in the adult entertainment industry can inflict significant damage, particularly for women. We’re actually seeing AI-generated imagery being used more and more in political propaganda (eg https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/25/technology/ai-elections-disinformation-guardrails.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/25/technology/ai-elections-d...). It’s not unreasonable to think this will become a major point in a future election, even if it hasn’t yet.
    - Tronno 3y ago
      > such a revelation that “they might’ve been a pornographic actor” I ask again, is there any evidence that such allegations have ever been taken seriously? I can't see fake porn having any reach, except amongst low-IQ consumers of internet trash, who are not only susceptible to obvious propaganda, but are already politically aligned against the victim. Other AI generated content may have more impact, but that's another conversation.
      - tredre3 3y ago
        > I can't see fake porn having any reach, except amongst low-IQ consumers of internet trash, who are not only susceptible to obvious propaganda, but are already politically aligned against the victim. You seem to have made your mind and no further discussion is possible.
      - BoxFour 3y ago
        If you're wondering whether people spreading juicy and false rumors about candidates' sexual matters have had an impact on election outcomes, the answer is definitely yes. Maybe this specific type of sexual rumor hasn't had a major effect, but considering that this technology is still relatively new, it's not something to be too complacent about. On the topic of people believing outlandish things on whimsy evidence: Plenty of people were convinced Hillary Clinton was running an underground child pornography ring in a pizza basement based on paintings hung in someone’s house. Maybe they were all politically aligned against her from the start, or maybe they weren’t and it affected the 2016 election. How would we know?
        necovek 3y ago
        One can do polls to establish eg. "do you believe this story", "did you support Clinton before this", "did this change your voting preference"... While no poll is 100% accurate, as long as you make it statistically significant and introduce a good control (say multiple fake and real stories, with some of them positive too), you'll get good signal and ability to say exactly if it did affect the election.
- everybodyknows 3y ago
  > Could reasonable people mistake them for the real thing? That could be construed as satisfying the critical legal element of a defamation claim: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
fortran77 3y ago
I agree this is a very complicated issue. If someone were to draw a watercolor painting of a likeness of a President one doesn't like having sex with an equally despised congresswoman, most would agree that this is a classic "free speech issue" and is the very sort of protected speech that first ammendment clearly protects. Ignoring tangential issues, like the copyright of the images used in the "deep fake", how is this situation any different?
- murphyslab 3y ago
  By virtue of appearing to be a photograph. The medium itself is a message (cf. Marshall McLuhan). An image which appears to be a photograph conveys a meaning to the viewer that "this depicts a real event", whereas if I draw a picture, even if it is of something plausible but which as never happened, there isn't a perception that the image is being presented as evidence of an event which has taken place. If we know that enough people will draw such an inference from a statement, it can and should be treated as potentially libelous.
  - reverius42 3y ago
    > An image which appears to be a photograph conveys a meaning to the viewer that "this depicts a real event" That notion is going to have to die, and soon.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  > If someone were to draw a watercolor painting of a likeness of a President one doesn't like having sex with an equally despised congresswoman, most would agree that this is a classic "free speech issue" and is the very sort of protected speech that first ammendment clearly protects. You would be wrong; there are many legal issues which can protect identifiable people from having their likeness used, especially if it is (1) without consent and (2) in a "private place" (or depicted in an intimate/private situation). The person whose likeness is used would very much have recourse to sue, whether it's the painter of a watercolor or someone who generates a deepfake. The same principles apply.
- Hard_Space 3y ago
endisneigh 3y ago
I don’t know why people ask these kinds of questions. It’s like saying bomb ownership is ok because firecrackers can be bought. Clearly there’s a difference in scale. In any case there shouldn’t be any difference I would imagine. There’s already precedent in United States, but circumstances matter.
- Ferret7446 3y ago
  Bomb ownership is okay AFAIK. Intent to commit murder/terrorism/etc is not. You'd have to convince the police/jury though.
- arp242 3y ago
  > I don’t know why people ask these kinds of questions. It’s like saying bomb ownership is ok because firecrackers can be bought. Clearly there’s a difference in scale. Yes, exactly, and by asking these sort of questions we can clarify what that scale is, exactly. When exactly does a "firecracker" turn in to a "bomb"? What are any objective difference between the two? etc. Here is some deepfake porn I just created of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton: \ Õ / \ | / | ----D <-----O / \ /| \ / \ / | \ You could say "well, that's not very good deepfake porn as it doesn't look anything like them, and it's just a bunch of stick figures", but what exactly does it mean for something to be a "deepfake"? Is at some point a painting realistic enough to be a "deepfake"? Is using a look-a-like okay? Where are the limits, exactly? What exactly makes a "real" deepfake worse than my stick figures?
  - tyg13 3y ago
    > What exactly makes a "real" deepfake worse than my stick figures? Level of realism?
    - theshrike79 3y ago
      But what amount of realism is accepted? If the result is still in the uncanny valley, is it OK? How far can we dig out of the valley before it becomes not OK?
tech_ken 3y ago
The difficulty required in producing this rate limits it, moreover artists can exercise professional discretion.
qwery 3y ago
Your line of questioning makes no sense. You are introducing the medium as an issue -- why? If you have would have a legal leg to stand on, ask a lawyer. Do you have a moral right? Yes, of course, you've been violated. Also, the "traditional wholesome art mediums" thing is a bit weird to use for an argument, to me anyway. The act is made much more disturbing and violent owing to the image being created by hand, with care and attention.
- cvalka 3y ago
  There's no violence or "violation" here just someone being unhappy. Tough luck.
  - qwery 3y ago
    You seem to be arguing in bad faith, perhaps from an emotional standpoint. But you seem to be genuinely stuck on the terms 'violation' and 'violence', so: The post I replied to introduced the term 'violated'. It asks "are you as violated?" -- you'll note that 'as' being present indicates that something can be more or less violated -- it was also their assumption that in either case there would be some amount of violation felt. My reply to their post is based on the framework that they established. Take it up with them. To take action with intent to harm another is violence. To (seek to) inflict damage, destruction, pain or suffering is violent.
fortran77 3y ago
See also "No Vehicles Allowed in Park"

EA-3167 3y ago

Would those "tools" such as ink and paper produce a similar, photorealistic result? Could reasonable people mistake them for the real thing?

sigstoat 3y ago
look up "photorealism".
h2odragon 3y ago
Are you suggesting that all those photos of Abraham Lincoln nekkid from fark.com might not have been real?
Tronno 3y ago
I have trouble imagining a reasonable person being interested in porn containing a minor government official, let alone being confused as to its authenticity. I can't even see reasonable people being interested in genuine celebrity sex tapes. The audience for that seems limited to malicious weirdos who already have zero respect for the victim. Any influence it might have on their opinions seems irrelevant. Of course, this has no bearing on the personal violation one feels when exposed to this sort of abuse. But for deepfake porn to somehow influence public perception is hard for me to grasp. Are there any examples of real reputational damage stemming from this?
- BoxFour 3y ago
  to say nothing of the personal feeling of violation, the individual in question seems to be a relatively young and ambitious individual, likely harboring aspirations for a more prominent political career. The potential consequences of such a revelation that “they might’ve been a pornographic actor” could give rise to a future scandal during an election. Even the slightest insinuation of involvement in the adult entertainment industry can inflict significant damage, particularly for women. We’re actually seeing AI-generated imagery being used more and more in political propaganda (eg https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/25/technology/ai-elections-disinformation-guardrails.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/25/technology/ai-elections-d...). It’s not unreasonable to think this will become a major point in a future election, even if it hasn’t yet.
  - Tronno 3y ago
    > such a revelation that “they might’ve been a pornographic actor” I ask again, is there any evidence that such allegations have ever been taken seriously? I can't see fake porn having any reach, except amongst low-IQ consumers of internet trash, who are not only susceptible to obvious propaganda, but are already politically aligned against the victim. Other AI generated content may have more impact, but that's another conversation.
    - tredre3 3y ago
      > I can't see fake porn having any reach, except amongst low-IQ consumers of internet trash, who are not only susceptible to obvious propaganda, but are already politically aligned against the victim. You seem to have made your mind and no further discussion is possible.
    - BoxFour 3y ago
      If you're wondering whether people spreading juicy and false rumors about candidates' sexual matters have had an impact on election outcomes, the answer is definitely yes. Maybe this specific type of sexual rumor hasn't had a major effect, but considering that this technology is still relatively new, it's not something to be too complacent about. On the topic of people believing outlandish things on whimsy evidence: Plenty of people were convinced Hillary Clinton was running an underground child pornography ring in a pizza basement based on paintings hung in someone’s house. Maybe they were all politically aligned against her from the start, or maybe they weren’t and it affected the 2016 election. How would we know?
      - necovek 3y ago
        One can do polls to establish eg. "do you believe this story", "did you support Clinton before this", "did this change your voting preference"... While no poll is 100% accurate, as long as you make it statistically significant and introduce a good control (say multiple fake and real stories, with some of them positive too), you'll get good signal and ability to say exactly if it did affect the election.
everybodyknows 3y ago
> Could reasonable people mistake them for the real thing? That could be construed as satisfying the critical legal element of a defamation claim: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

fortran77 3y ago

I agree this is a very complicated issue. If someone were to draw a watercolor painting of a likeness of a President one doesn't like having sex with an equally despised congresswoman, most would agree that this is a classic "free speech issue" and is the very sort of protected speech that first ammendment clearly protects. Ignoring tangential issues, like the copyright of the images used in the "deep fake", how is this situation any different?

murphyslab 3y ago
By virtue of appearing to be a photograph. The medium itself is a message (cf. Marshall McLuhan). An image which appears to be a photograph conveys a meaning to the viewer that "this depicts a real event", whereas if I draw a picture, even if it is of something plausible but which as never happened, there isn't a perception that the image is being presented as evidence of an event which has taken place. If we know that enough people will draw such an inference from a statement, it can and should be treated as potentially libelous.
- reverius42 3y ago
  > An image which appears to be a photograph conveys a meaning to the viewer that "this depicts a real event" That notion is going to have to die, and soon.
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
> If someone were to draw a watercolor painting of a likeness of a President one doesn't like having sex with an equally despised congresswoman, most would agree that this is a classic "free speech issue" and is the very sort of protected speech that first ammendment clearly protects. You would be wrong; there are many legal issues which can protect identifiable people from having their likeness used, especially if it is (1) without consent and (2) in a "private place" (or depicted in an intimate/private situation). The person whose likeness is used would very much have recourse to sue, whether it's the painter of a watercolor or someone who generates a deepfake. The same principles apply.
Hard_Space 3y ago

endisneigh 3y ago

I don’t know why people ask these kinds of questions. It’s like saying bomb ownership is ok because firecrackers can be bought. Clearly there’s a difference in scale. In any case there shouldn’t be any difference I would imagine. There’s already precedent in United States, but circumstances matter.

Ferret7446 3y ago
Bomb ownership is okay AFAIK. Intent to commit murder/terrorism/etc is not. You'd have to convince the police/jury though.
arp242 3y ago
> I don’t know why people ask these kinds of questions. It’s like saying bomb ownership is ok because firecrackers can be bought. Clearly there’s a difference in scale. Yes, exactly, and by asking these sort of questions we can clarify what that scale is, exactly. When exactly does a "firecracker" turn in to a "bomb"? What are any objective difference between the two? etc. Here is some deepfake porn I just created of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton: \ Õ / \ | / | ----D <-----O / \ /| \ / \ / | \ You could say "well, that's not very good deepfake porn as it doesn't look anything like them, and it's just a bunch of stick figures", but what exactly does it mean for something to be a "deepfake"? Is at some point a painting realistic enough to be a "deepfake"? Is using a look-a-like okay? Where are the limits, exactly? What exactly makes a "real" deepfake worse than my stick figures?
- tyg13 3y ago
  > What exactly makes a "real" deepfake worse than my stick figures? Level of realism?
  - theshrike79 3y ago
    But what amount of realism is accepted? If the result is still in the uncanny valley, is it OK? How far can we dig out of the valley before it becomes not OK?

tech_ken 3y ago

The difficulty required in producing this rate limits it, moreover artists can exercise professional discretion.

qwery 3y ago

Your line of questioning makes no sense. You are introducing the medium as an issue -- why? If you have would have a legal leg to stand on, ask a lawyer. Do you have a moral right? Yes, of course, you've been violated. Also, the "traditional wholesome art mediums" thing is a bit weird to use for an argument, to me anyway. The act is made much more disturbing and violent owing to the image being created by hand, with care and attention.

cvalka 3y ago
There's no violence or "violation" here just someone being unhappy. Tough luck.
- qwery 3y ago
  You seem to be arguing in bad faith, perhaps from an emotional standpoint. But you seem to be genuinely stuck on the terms 'violation' and 'violence', so: The post I replied to introduced the term 'violated'. It asks "are you as violated?" -- you'll note that 'as' being present indicates that something can be more or less violated -- it was also their assumption that in either case there would be some amount of violation felt. My reply to their post is based on the framework that they established. Take it up with them. To take action with intent to harm another is violence. To (seek to) inflict damage, destruction, pain or suffering is violent.

fortran77 3y ago