That's true. We might see liability arising from recklessly spreading fakes, similar to the liability of creating a hazard that hurts someone. Like, there's not

That's true. We might see liability arising from recklessly spreading fakes, similar to the liability of creating a hazard that hurts someone. Like, there's nothing wrong with having a fake bomb, but if you leave it in an airport or mall and it causes a panic then you're in big trouble. There's nothing illegal about making coffee so hot that it would scald the skin, but if you hand it to a customer or leave it where you should expect people to touch it and someone gets hurt then you're in big trouble. If there's some label to make it clear the image is fake then can anyone legitimately claim damages? If I had a big warning sign about the danger of the hot coffee I'd probably be off the hook. If there's a label on a deepfake that says "Image generated by Stable Diffusion. Resemblance to any real person is purely coincidental" would that make any difference?