3 ms·

Do you think cutting a face out of a picture and putting it on some other nude human for a wank should be a crime?

by tekla 2y ago

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
I think distributing that image without the consent of the person whose face you used should be a crime. Purely private use is a harder question, but I think also a much less important one.
- superkuh 2y ago
  Do you think giving the image to a friend on an IRC channel is distribution? What about if I give a physical copy to a friend at a bar at a table? Or is it only distribution if a corporation is involved like having Facebook host the photo? What is "distribution"? What is a public space and what is a private space? Your simple solution brings in insolvable problems and incredible vagueness that will result, again, in worse problems than it "solves".
  - bashinator 2y ago
    > worse problems than it "solves". I'm going to go out on a limb and hypothesize that you're not in a demographic that is likely to be victimized by deepfake porn of yourself.
    - superkuh 2y ago
      Lacking any arguments regarding the subject of discusion one often finds the internet outrage farmer resorting to comments about the persons involved instead.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - tekla 2y ago
      You understand that "feeling victimized" is not a good argument right? Ex. I'm morbidly obese. Someone shares pictures of me (taken in a public area) and laughs at me for that. Is that a crime? I might feel like shit and victimized, but thats not actually an argument that its a crime. This sort of argument really seems like a way to try to use ick and feels versus actual logic.
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    We routinely define “distribution” in copyright cases and I don’t see why the same standards would be unworkable here. Privately sharing a physical copy with a close friend is not distribution, publicly posting for all to see is distribution, and other things occupy a fact and intent specific middle ground. I’m not sure what you mean when you say it will result in problems; I would not identify it as a problem if people avoid creating deepfake nudes of real people altogether to ensure they’re not liable for distributing them.
    - tekla 2y ago
      So, if I had lets say whatever, 10 close friends in a chat, producing deepfake porn and sharing to them is ok? I'm not sure about this copyright argument? Lets say that there is whatever meme that is just making fun of something dumb, a "karen" doing something stupid in public. Would you argue distributing that meme is illegal? So, lets say someone was naked in public and was fine with being photographed, then someone else cut out a publically available picture ( whatever, maybe it was a free shutterstock face) and pasted it on the body of that person, is that bad? /shrug
      - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
        If I were writing the law, I guess my instinct would be to make the first illegal and the last two legal. I don't mean to be obtuse, I know there's a deeper point you're trying to make, but I don't get what it is. Is there an answer to these questions that would prove it should or shouldn't be illegal to distribute deepfake porn of real people?

Do you think cutting a face out of a picture and putting it on some other nude human for a wank should be a crime?

by tekla 2y ago

Do you think cutting a face out of a picture and putting it on some other nude human for a wank should be a crime?

I think distributing that image without the consent of the person whose face you used should be a crime. Purely private use is a harder question, but I think also a much less important one.

superkuh 2y ago
Do you think giving the image to a friend on an IRC channel is distribution? What about if I give a physical copy to a friend at a bar at a table? Or is it only distribution if a corporation is involved like having Facebook host the photo? What is "distribution"? What is a public space and what is a private space? Your simple solution brings in insolvable problems and incredible vagueness that will result, again, in worse problems than it "solves".
- bashinator 2y ago
  > worse problems than it "solves". I'm going to go out on a limb and hypothesize that you're not in a demographic that is likely to be victimized by deepfake porn of yourself.
  - superkuh 2y ago
    Lacking any arguments regarding the subject of discusion one often finds the internet outrage farmer resorting to comments about the persons involved instead.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - tekla 2y ago
    You understand that "feeling victimized" is not a good argument right? Ex. I'm morbidly obese. Someone shares pictures of me (taken in a public area) and laughs at me for that. Is that a crime? I might feel like shit and victimized, but thats not actually an argument that its a crime. This sort of argument really seems like a way to try to use ick and feels versus actual logic.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  We routinely define “distribution” in copyright cases and I don’t see why the same standards would be unworkable here. Privately sharing a physical copy with a close friend is not distribution, publicly posting for all to see is distribution, and other things occupy a fact and intent specific middle ground. I’m not sure what you mean when you say it will result in problems; I would not identify it as a problem if people avoid creating deepfake nudes of real people altogether to ensure they’re not liable for distributing them.
  - tekla 2y ago
    So, if I had lets say whatever, 10 close friends in a chat, producing deepfake porn and sharing to them is ok? I'm not sure about this copyright argument? Lets say that there is whatever meme that is just making fun of something dumb, a "karen" doing something stupid in public. Would you argue distributing that meme is illegal? So, lets say someone was naked in public and was fine with being photographed, then someone else cut out a publically available picture ( whatever, maybe it was a free shutterstock face) and pasted it on the body of that person, is that bad? /shrug
    - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
      If I were writing the law, I guess my instinct would be to make the first illegal and the last two legal. I don't mean to be obtuse, I know there's a deeper point you're trying to make, but I don't get what it is. Is there an answer to these questions that would prove it should or shouldn't be illegal to distribute deepfake porn of real people?