> The real harm seems to come from publishing, and making the connection (i.e. claim that this image that looks like this actress is in fact, image of this actr

> The real harm seems to come from publishing, and making the connection (i.e. claim that this image that looks like this actress is in fact, image of this actress), so the image can be found under their name. That's where I think we should draw a line. Does it have to be publication? Suppose somebody creates a picture of actress X doing something she'd never do, with somebody she'd never do it with, in circumstances that she finds degrading, and, heck, let's say with "pig whore" painted on her... and privately emails it to her. "Thought you'd like this picture.". No publication, just a private message. No caption on the picture, nothing like that; it's just her mind that makes the connection. No defamation; obviously she's not going to believe it actually happened and obviously the sender doesn't expect her to. It might be hard to do that particular examples without it coming off as a threat, but even if it were clearly not a threat, I don't think most targets would be very thrilled about it. It's not just publication.