5 ms·
The text of the House's version of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7569/text/ih?format=xml https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th
by svieira 2y ago
The text of the House's version of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7569/text/ih?format=xml https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7569...
* 10 year statute of limitations
* $150,000 limits in damages plus court costs and attorney fees
The crime:
> The term ‘digital forgery’ means any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means, including by adapting, modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic visual depiction, to appear to a reasonable person to be indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual, regardless of whether the visual depiction indicates, through a label or some other form of information published with the visual depiction, that the visual depiction is not authentic ... [and]
> (I) the identifiable individual did not consent to such production, disclosure, solicitation, or possession;
> (II) the person knew or recklessly disregarded that the identifiable individual did not consent to such production, disclosure, solicitation, or possession; and
> (III) such production, disclosure, solicitation, or possession is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce or uses any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce
- tivert 2y agoSo this bans photoshop, too? Maybe even oil painting (oil paints are a technology, and an unauthorized nude oil painting of a celebrity would be indistinguishable from an "authentic"/authorized nude oil painting).
- svieira 2y agoAs I read it this allows civil suites against persons for publishing up a photo where the publisher used the "remove element from background", much less "any Instagram filter" without the explicit consent of the photographed person.
- tivert 2y agoI don't think it would do that, unless the original was an "intimate visual depiction." However, I do think it would allow, say, Trump to sue people who made or distributed an image of him appearing in a diaper (IIRC I think that has been a fairly common way to mock him as a crybaby).
- Laremere 2y agoINAL, not legal advice: The existing legal code which this bill modified is linked from the bill and available here: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6851%20edition:prelim) http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6... In this, it defines "intimate visual depiction". I see nothing here that would qualify in an image of Trump being in a diaper.
- Laremere 2y agoINAL, not legal advice: The definition of digital forgery references the existing legal code's definition of "Intimate visual depiction", which is defined here: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6851%20edition:prelim) http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6... So if you take an otherwise legal picture of someone, and add a filter which, eg, gives them a big forehead, you're fine. However, if you take a picture of and use it to create realistic porn of that person, that can sue.
- vundercind 2y agoThis discussion section has convinced me that high school civics courses need to teach how to read bills. We’ve got (lots of!) people assuming that legislators’ statements of their own motivations represent the law itself; that if something’s not in the text of a bill that explicitly modifies another law then it must just not exist (… try the law it’s modifying) and tons of other mistakes; and in general most of the discussion being about as silly as one might expect if the text of the law were secret rather than readily available and not even that hard to read. Plus all the usual not understanding how the government, and especially the first amendment, works, which is a separate but also serious problem.