3 ms·

Your snipping is making it look broader than it is: you can’t misrepresent someone as being supportive of your product or cause, and you can’t distribute softwa

Your snipping is making it look broader than it is: you can’t misrepresent someone as being supportive of your product or cause, and you can’t distribute software that makes, or make yourself, likenesses of other people without their prior consent. It doesn’t constrain what you do in contexts other than where you use someone’s likeness to misrepresent their position. The harms are restricted to the scope above.

Gormo 9mo ago
> Your snipping is making it look broader than it is: you can’t misrepresent someone as being supportive of your product or cause, and you can’t distribute software that makes, or make yourself, likenesses of other people without their prior consent. This sounds like it would effectively ban photography in public places. Or at least ban the manufacture/sale of cameras or software that takes photos.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
amiga386 9mo ago
So if I draw a caricature of a politician in Illustrator, then Adobe goes to prison? What if I draw a caricature of my own friends, in Illustrator, without first getting their consent? Does Adobe go to prison? What if I captioned my illustration with my friend saying "It's my round!" (which is misrepresenting their position because it's never their bloody round), would Adobe go to prison then?
- kelseyfrog 9mo ago
  No, there is currently no method to imprison Adobe nor any other company.
- amiga386 9mo ago
  Having looked up the text, I can now answer my own questions. 1. As "the production of an individual’s photograph, voice, or likeness" is not Illustrator's "primary purpose or function", Adobe are off the hook. So is anyone else if they argue that the "primary purpose or function" is not the production of an individual's photograph, voice, or likeness. So if Grok can be prompted to produce any image, including porn of individuals, provided it's not the primary purpose of Grok, they're untouchable. 2. Even if the bill weren't worded that way, a legal person in Ireland allows for corporate personhood (https://legalguide.ie/corporate-identity/#separate-legal-person https://legalguide.ie/corporate-identity/#separate-legal-per...), so Adobe Corporation, as the legal person who "distributes, transmits, or otherwise makes available an algorithm, software, tool, or other technology, service, or device" (Illustrator) would not be subject to "imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years", but it would be subject to "a fine" (maximum amount not specified) 3. Misrepresenting someone or not is irrelevant. The offense is when you either use the depicted person without their consent (regardless of how you represent them) or you intend to harm them (or recklessly don't consider the harm you might cause them), whether you have their consent or not. Harm specifically is {interfering "with the other person’s peace and privacy" or causing "alarm or distress" to them} _AND_ "a reasonable person would realise" that. It would be pretty difficult for a reasonable person (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person) to think misrepresenting a politician would cause them "alarm or distress" or interfere with their "peace and privacy", so you'd probably be fine producing images of politician XYZ saying they hate freedom, want to take your guns away, eat babies, etc., as they get that day-in, day-out and it hasn't stopped them yet.
pessimizer 9mo ago
Your second sentence directly contradicts your first sentence, and the substance of your post is only two sentences.
john-h-k 9mo ago
"or to influence elections or referenda" has quite a wide scope and was what concerned me. Publishing a political in a negative light absolutely could influence an election! But yes I should have included that part, not good by me, sorry.

Gormo 9mo ago

> Your snipping is making it look broader than it is: you can’t misrepresent someone as being supportive of your product or cause, and you can’t distribute software that makes, or make yourself, likenesses of other people without their prior consent. This sounds like it would effectively ban photography in public places. Or at least ban the manufacture/sale of cameras or software that takes photos.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

amiga386 9mo ago

So if I draw a caricature of a politician in Illustrator, then Adobe goes to prison? What if I draw a caricature of my own friends, in Illustrator, without first getting their consent? Does Adobe go to prison? What if I captioned my illustration with my friend saying "It's my round!" (which is misrepresenting their position because it's never their bloody round), would Adobe go to prison then?

kelseyfrog 9mo ago
No, there is currently no method to imprison Adobe nor any other company.
amiga386 9mo ago
Having looked up the text, I can now answer my own questions. 1. As "the production of an individual’s photograph, voice, or likeness" is not Illustrator's "primary purpose or function", Adobe are off the hook. So is anyone else if they argue that the "primary purpose or function" is not the production of an individual's photograph, voice, or likeness. So if Grok can be prompted to produce any image, including porn of individuals, provided it's not the primary purpose of Grok, they're untouchable. 2. Even if the bill weren't worded that way, a legal person in Ireland allows for corporate personhood (https://legalguide.ie/corporate-identity/#separate-legal-person https://legalguide.ie/corporate-identity/#separate-legal-per...), so Adobe Corporation, as the legal person who "distributes, transmits, or otherwise makes available an algorithm, software, tool, or other technology, service, or device" (Illustrator) would not be subject to "imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years", but it would be subject to "a fine" (maximum amount not specified) 3. Misrepresenting someone or not is irrelevant. The offense is when you either use the depicted person without their consent (regardless of how you represent them) or you intend to harm them (or recklessly don't consider the harm you might cause them), whether you have their consent or not. Harm specifically is {interfering "with the other person’s peace and privacy" or causing "alarm or distress" to them} _AND_ "a reasonable person would realise" that. It would be pretty difficult for a reasonable person (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person) to think misrepresenting a politician would cause them "alarm or distress" or interfere with their "peace and privacy", so you'd probably be fine producing images of politician XYZ saying they hate freedom, want to take your guns away, eat babies, etc., as they get that day-in, day-out and it hasn't stopped them yet.

pessimizer 9mo ago

Your second sentence directly contradicts your first sentence, and the substance of your post is only two sentences.

john-h-k 9mo ago

"or to influence elections or referenda" has quite a wide scope and was what concerned me. Publishing a political in a negative light absolutely could influence an election! But yes I should have included that part, not good by me, sorry.