2 ms·

As 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 In

As 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 ago
I 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 ago
  INAL, 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 ago
INAL, 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 ago
  This 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.

tivert 2y ago

I 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 ago
INAL, 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 ago

INAL, 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 ago
This 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.