7 ms·

Nonconsensual AI porn is both defamation and a violation of the person likeness’ rights. It should be banned.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
The solution is on two fronts: championing legislation prohibiting this and matching attorneys who will ruthlessly litigate to those infringed upon (when civil statute allows). I encourage you on both. Call your representatives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
- mateus1 2y ago
  I’m not in the US, pretty sure this is illegal already here.
- polski-g 2y ago
  The supreme court has already declared this to be covered by the first amendment in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition. You have a right to make artwork of other people, even if it's naked artwork.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Lots of ways to work around SCOTUS decisions in this domain.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> a violation of the person likeness’ rights In America, we don’t have this federally.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  And even what exists in state law wouldn't usually cover this for most people (some revenge porn laws that didn't specifically intend to cover AI were nonetheless written broad enough that they inherently cover AI-generated nonconsensual porn of recognizable individuals, but that is separate from normal likeness rights laws.)
Pet_Ant 2y ago
How is non consensual porn different than hiring a look alike? There is even the term “dopelbanger”. There have always been actresses who made their careers from striking similarities to celebrities. As long as it’s not claimed to be legitimate there ought to be no case.
- mateus1 2y ago
  For one, you don’t create that person out of thin air using their likeness.
  - tucnak 2y ago
    So what? That is inconsequential to anything, let alone the premise of your grievance.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > How is non consensual porn different than hiring a look alike? Hiring a lookalike and presenting it (whether by explicit claim or implicitly by context) as the person who they look like is a mechanism for nonconsensual porn (other mechanisms besides AI are using true images and distributing them without consent, and using non-AI photomanipulation/compositing.)
- paulmd 2y ago
  I think the interesting thing is that this lower barrier to entry reveals some opinions people have about image that may have been incongruent with the way the law was written, that is now driven into sharper focus by making the barrier to entry almost zero. Clearly people seem to have some opinions about “image” etc that are much more aligned with “elvis laws” etc - ie that some forms of expression should be outlawed if they conflict with someone else’s right to control their own image especially commercially etc. https://www.adamsandreese.com/news-knowledge/elvis-act-tennessee-safeguards-against-deepfakes https://www.adamsandreese.com/news-knowledge/elvis-act-tenne... Under such Elvis laws, hiring an Elvis impersonator would be illegal, because their right to image trumps your right to expression. There are specific carveouts for basically traditional Elvis impersonation itself (and to try and stave off the obvious 1st amendment issues) but everything else is outlawed - you cannot be a Dolly Parton impersonator or a Taylor Swift impersonator today, under these laws, because it is treated differently now. But it’s the same problem as “students learning is diffusion too” problem - the model is not different in kind, it is diffusing and remixing ideas and infringing copyright just like a student writing a paper, it just does the same things enormously faster etc, which throws the inherent contradictions into light by removing the cost/barrier to entry. And it’s able to rapidly and skillfully generate photoshops at a rate and quality far higher than humans could achieve too.
superkuh 2y ago
Since this was a commercial operation for-profit the likesness rights argument could indeed apply. But lets keep in mind that it only makes sense within this context. It does not apply more broadly to non-commercial activities by people. The defamation claim seems unfounded since there is no claim these are actually photos of the person(s) involved. In fact they are certainly not photos and just synthetic generated images.
fastball 2y ago
For defamation don't you need to demonstrate the reputational damage?
- tangentstar 2y ago
  Not if the damages are presumed (e.g., if the false defamatory statement published to a third party consists of a claim that the plaintiff has a venereal disease, is unfit for their profession, or is a sexual deviant). Then, damages are presumed to exist.
ta20240226 2y ago
How is that different than a caricature? Or how about a painting of the person? What about a a figure like what was made of a naked Trump? Or how about the Trump diaper balloon? Or like Kanye did of a a naked Taylor Swift? Or what about SNL “lookalikes”?
Noumenon72 2y ago
"Nonconsensual porn" sounds like a strategic choice of words to give the impression you're banning porn about rape, not pasting someone's head on a generated body. If I write erotic fan fiction about Tom Brady without his permission that is "nonconsensual porn" by this definition. The fan fiction comparison also suggests this is not defamation -- for celebrities, defamation needs to show real damages as well as malicious intent and knowing falsity. I hope we end up with a distinction between commercial and private use, so this stuff isn't advertised or commercialized but people can enjoy it in private where it doesn't disturb anyone else.
- mateus1 2y ago
  You’re removing the keyword AI. This is in the context of using replicating someone’s appearance specifically for porn using their images as an input.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
    I mean, can't you do that with your thoughts?
    - ssl-3 2y ago
      I can. And some people appear to think that drawing those thoughts should be criminalized.
    - Madmallard 2y ago
      your thoughts aren't transmitted to potentially millions of people in great visual detail
      - hsyehbeidhh 2y ago
        Not unless they decide to come and see them. Nobody shouts in their ears.
    - mateus1 2y ago
      Just because some behavior can be imagined does not mean you should be able to carry it out in real life.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Why is it defamation if it isn’t claimed to be that person? And maybe a more interesting question - if you can think about your favorite celebrity, why is expressing it visually bad? Isn’t that just (free) speech? Or maybe it’s art? Digitally generated art is still art.
voidfunc 2y ago
We're banning art now?
- mateus1 2y ago
  Art is not above law. In the same way you would not feature children in this “art”.
  - voidfunc 2y ago
    "The law" is an ever changing thing. Shit we accept as art today would have probably caused riots 500 years ago.
  - Ferret7446 2y ago
    Isn't drawn "CSAM" mostly/somewhat legal (depends on your jurisdiction of course, and probably the political leanings of your particular judge)? For example, Maryland specifically excludes art [1] IIRC a good majority of the US states (but not all) do as well. [1]: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcr&section=11-208&enactments=False&archived=False https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?arti...
dragonwriter 2y ago
It's not inherently defamation because it is not a fact claim. (It can be used in the course of defmation, but then, so can actual photographs.)

The solution is on two fronts: championing legislation prohibiting this and matching attorneys who will ruthlessly litigate to those infringed upon (when civil statute allows). I encourage you on both. Call your representatives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

mateus1 2y ago
I’m not in the US, pretty sure this is illegal already here.
polski-g 2y ago
The supreme court has already declared this to be covered by the first amendment in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition. You have a right to make artwork of other people, even if it's naked artwork.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Lots of ways to work around SCOTUS decisions in this domain.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> a violation of the person likeness’ rights In America, we don’t have this federally.

dragonwriter 2y ago
And even what exists in state law wouldn't usually cover this for most people (some revenge porn laws that didn't specifically intend to cover AI were nonetheless written broad enough that they inherently cover AI-generated nonconsensual porn of recognizable individuals, but that is separate from normal likeness rights laws.)

Pet_Ant 2y ago

How is non consensual porn different than hiring a look alike? There is even the term “dopelbanger”. There have always been actresses who made their careers from striking similarities to celebrities. As long as it’s not claimed to be legitimate there ought to be no case.

mateus1 2y ago
For one, you don’t create that person out of thin air using their likeness.
- tucnak 2y ago
  So what? That is inconsequential to anything, let alone the premise of your grievance.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> How is non consensual porn different than hiring a look alike? Hiring a lookalike and presenting it (whether by explicit claim or implicitly by context) as the person who they look like is a mechanism for nonconsensual porn (other mechanisms besides AI are using true images and distributing them without consent, and using non-AI photomanipulation/compositing.)
paulmd 2y ago
I think the interesting thing is that this lower barrier to entry reveals some opinions people have about image that may have been incongruent with the way the law was written, that is now driven into sharper focus by making the barrier to entry almost zero. Clearly people seem to have some opinions about “image” etc that are much more aligned with “elvis laws” etc - ie that some forms of expression should be outlawed if they conflict with someone else’s right to control their own image especially commercially etc. https://www.adamsandreese.com/news-knowledge/elvis-act-tennessee-safeguards-against-deepfakes https://www.adamsandreese.com/news-knowledge/elvis-act-tenne... Under such Elvis laws, hiring an Elvis impersonator would be illegal, because their right to image trumps your right to expression. There are specific carveouts for basically traditional Elvis impersonation itself (and to try and stave off the obvious 1st amendment issues) but everything else is outlawed - you cannot be a Dolly Parton impersonator or a Taylor Swift impersonator today, under these laws, because it is treated differently now. But it’s the same problem as “students learning is diffusion too” problem - the model is not different in kind, it is diffusing and remixing ideas and infringing copyright just like a student writing a paper, it just does the same things enormously faster etc, which throws the inherent contradictions into light by removing the cost/barrier to entry. And it’s able to rapidly and skillfully generate photoshops at a rate and quality far higher than humans could achieve too.

superkuh 2y ago

Since this was a commercial operation for-profit the likesness rights argument could indeed apply. But lets keep in mind that it only makes sense within this context. It does not apply more broadly to non-commercial activities by people. The defamation claim seems unfounded since there is no claim these are actually photos of the person(s) involved. In fact they are certainly not photos and just synthetic generated images.

fastball 2y ago

For defamation don't you need to demonstrate the reputational damage?

tangentstar 2y ago
Not if the damages are presumed (e.g., if the false defamatory statement published to a third party consists of a claim that the plaintiff has a venereal disease, is unfit for their profession, or is a sexual deviant). Then, damages are presumed to exist.

ta20240226 2y ago

How is that different than a caricature? Or how about a painting of the person? What about a a figure like what was made of a naked Trump? Or how about the Trump diaper balloon? Or like Kanye did of a a naked Taylor Swift? Or what about SNL “lookalikes”?

Noumenon72 2y ago

"Nonconsensual porn" sounds like a strategic choice of words to give the impression you're banning porn about rape, not pasting someone's head on a generated body. If I write erotic fan fiction about Tom Brady without his permission that is "nonconsensual porn" by this definition. The fan fiction comparison also suggests this is not defamation -- for celebrities, defamation needs to show real damages as well as malicious intent and knowing falsity. I hope we end up with a distinction between commercial and private use, so this stuff isn't advertised or commercialized but people can enjoy it in private where it doesn't disturb anyone else.

mateus1 2y ago
You’re removing the keyword AI. This is in the context of using replicating someone’s appearance specifically for porn using their images as an input.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
  I mean, can't you do that with your thoughts?
  - ssl-3 2y ago
    I can. And some people appear to think that drawing those thoughts should be criminalized.
  - Madmallard 2y ago
    your thoughts aren't transmitted to potentially millions of people in great visual detail
    - hsyehbeidhh 2y ago
      Not unless they decide to come and see them. Nobody shouts in their ears.
  - mateus1 2y ago
    Just because some behavior can be imagined does not mean you should be able to carry it out in real life.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

Why is it defamation if it isn’t claimed to be that person? And maybe a more interesting question - if you can think about your favorite celebrity, why is expressing it visually bad? Isn’t that just (free) speech? Or maybe it’s art? Digitally generated art is still art.

voidfunc 2y ago

We're banning art now?

mateus1 2y ago
Art is not above law. In the same way you would not feature children in this “art”.
- voidfunc 2y ago
  "The law" is an ever changing thing. Shit we accept as art today would have probably caused riots 500 years ago.
- Ferret7446 2y ago
  Isn't drawn "CSAM" mostly/somewhat legal (depends on your jurisdiction of course, and probably the political leanings of your particular judge)? For example, Maryland specifically excludes art [1] IIRC a good majority of the US states (but not all) do as well. [1]: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcr&section=11-208&enactments=False&archived=False https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?arti...

dragonwriter 2y ago

It's not inherently defamation because it is not a fact claim. (It can be used in the course of defmation, but then, so can actual photographs.)