> Then it's the search engine which makes/keeps and publishes the association between actress names and their images, and publishing that association would be i

> Then it's the search engine which makes/keeps and publishes the association between actress names and their images, and publishing that association would be illegal. In other words, the search engine should not make an inference, this image looks like a specific actress => this image is of this actress. Assuring that is technically difficult, error prone, and likely to interfere with legitimate functions of the search engine (assuming you think that search-by-face has any legitimate functions). One of the signs of being on the wrong track in policy is that you find yourself having to go after more and more people and forbid more and more things. > Look at where the reputation risk comes from This. Is. Not. About. Reputation. Not for major celebrities. Not in any way, shape, or form. If you posted a deepfake of some major actress that was any more pornographic than some casual wardrobe malfunction, put her name on it, and claimed it was real, still effectively nobody would believe it was real (unless she had actually made it, in which case she or her publicists would make really sure that was known). Unless she was really unusually dumb, she would know that effectively nobody believed it was real. And yet she might very well feel harmed by it. And for that matter she might be actually seen in a different light by people who were 100 percent certain it wasn't her and she had nothing to do with it. Claiming it's a deepfake of "her character" doesn't change the fact that it is equally a deepfake of her. It's an image. There is nothing interesting about it other than its appearance. And it appears to be her just as much as it appears to be the character. It's true that reputation risk comes into it for "normal" people, but everybody knows that there are going to be tons of fakes of celebrities.