63 points

If they’re going to go this way, I don’t think it should be limited to just porn. There are plenty of ways you could ruin someone’s life without a deepfake being sexually explicit.

permalink
report
reply
17 points

There already are a lot of laws covering that. This one is to cover an additional angle where people create deepfake without provably publishing it, the intent being that showing it to friends and verbally threatening to “leak” them should be easier to prosecute.

If you create a deepfake and share it, you’re slapped with two crimes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

the intent being that showing it to friends and verbally threatening to “leak” them should be easier to prosecute.

That’s blackmail, which is already illegal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Using a mobile phone while driving has always been illegal if you could argue that it was dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention. They made a law specifically saying that using a mobile phone without hands free is illegal anyway. This makes it easier to prosecute because you don’t need to argue that they were driving dangerously or without due care.

I imagine that this law has the same intent of making this specific act illegal to prevent them having to argue that it fits another crime.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Yeah the way people can recreate someone “in need of assistance” to trick family or associates is really scary especially for people who aren’t exactly tech savvy. That seems to me to be a worse crime than an explicit video that is pretty obviously doctored

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

I wonder what happens when it just accidentally looks like someone but was intended to be a fictional person. Also, how much can you base it on a real person before it’s considered a deep fake of that person? Would race-swapping be enough to make it a “new” person so it’s not illegal anymore? My intuition is that just eye colour or something wouldn’t be enough, but it’s a sliding scale where the line must be drawn somewhere even if it’s a fuzzy line.

What about an AI generated mashup of two people like those “what the child would look like” pictures back in the day. Does that violate both people or neither?

What about depicting a person older than they are now? That’s technically not somebody that exists, but might in the future.

What if you use AI but make it look like it’s hand-drawn or a cartoon?

What if you use AI to create sexual voice clips of a real person but use images that don’t look like them or no image at all?

There are just so many possibilities and questions that I feel it might be impossible to legislate in a way that isn’t always 10 steps behind or has a million unforeseen consequences.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

There’s already laws against using someone’s likeness for commercial purposes without their consent, I’m guessing this will require the same fuzzy cutoff and basically just be up to the jury to decide or the judge to dismiss.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points

Well, let’s find out. Please give me 20 sample photos of you, 30 minutes of audio and 10 of video.

I’m going to have you get gangbanged by 100 German men and upload it to xvideos.

Now, that is probably something you deserve to consent to, isn’t it?

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

I have a hard time accepting this as a crime. What if the illustration hand-drawn, or clothed but still sexual in character? Is caricature illegal, by this standard?

permalink
report
reply
15 points

You’d better not have a particularly vivid imagination or else you’ll be prosecuted for daydreaming.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Yea, this is a funny thing to think about.

You can jerk off to photos of people, you can imagine some wild things involving other people etc.

If you just create some deepfake porn to masturbate by yourself to, I don’t see a big problem with that.

The only issue I can find is, that due to neglect someone else sees it, or even hears about it.

The problem starts with sharing. Like it would be sexual harassment to tell people who you are masturbating to, especially sharing with the “actors” of your fantasies.

There is however another way this could go:

Everyone can now share nudes with way less risk.

If anyone leaks them, just go: “That’s a deepfake. This is obviously a targeted attack by the heathens of the internet, who are jealous of my pure and upstanding nature. For me only married missionary with lights out.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

There’s a big difference between a deep fake and a caricature.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yeah, but only one of degree.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

How so?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

The difference is so big, it easily becomes qualitative.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points
*

Ooohh, can’t wait to see us waste billions of dollars deliberating what is acceptable just like with copyright law.

This is another law that only exists to protect rich people. Poor people can’t afford a lawyer and don’t have time to show up in court.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

You seriously can’t see why deep fakes are a serious problem to everyone?

This law won’t protect just rich.

Imagine the chaos as some idiot teen creates a deep fake of some other teen in a compromising position.

Go talk to an attorney and see what they have to say about it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Is caricature illegal, by this standard?

No.

The official government announcement is linked in the article btw.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

This is why we should be making laws around likeness rights. If you damage somebody by publicly using their name to spread falsehoods, that’s defamation or libel. But, if you produce an image or video of their likeness instead of using their name, there’s no legal recourse. Makes no sense this day in age

permalink
report
reply
-2 points

Who decides how similar somebody is “allowed” to look to another? There are people who bear an uncanny resemblance to others. And what of identical twins? Can one sue the other if they do porn?

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

The courts, probably. That’s what they are for.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

“Without consent.” I’m very curious who would consent to having deepfake porn made of themselves.

permalink
report
reply
12 points

I can imagine a non-zero amount of people would consent to a deep-fake porn video of themselves having sex with some generic hot woman, just as one example.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That makes sense, I hadn’t thought of that sort of deepfake.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Better make sure the generic hot woman doesn’t resemble anyone real though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Could be very lucrative if you are already in porn and want to make some money from your likeness. This guy’s gonna pay me $500 to make a video and I don’t even have to do anything?

Could also be very good for porn stars who have “aged out” but can still make videos using their younger bodies as weird as that may be.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

A user shared a story a while back about his wife and her sister giving photos and agreeing to it. Lots of kinky people out there.

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!world@lemmy.world

Create post

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

  • Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:

    • Post news articles only
    • Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
    • Title must match the article headline
    • Not United States Internal News
    • Recent (Past 30 Days)
    • Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
  • Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think “Is this fair use?”, it probably isn’t. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.

  • Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.

  • Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.

  • Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19

  • Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

  • Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

  • Rule 7: We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 17K

    Posts

  • 273K

    Comments