752
submitted 5 months ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

THE SENATE UNANIMOUSLY passed a bipartisan bill to provide recourse to victims of porn deepfakes — or sexually-explicit, non-consensual images created with artificial intelligence

The legislation, called the Disrupt Explicit Forged Images and Non-Consensual Edits (DEFIANCE) Act — passed in Congress’ upper chamber on Tuesday.  The legislation has been led by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), as well as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in the House.

The legislation would amend the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to allow people to sue those who produce, distribute, or receive the deepfake pornography, if they “knew or recklessly disregarded” the fact that the victim did not consent to those images.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] gnutrino@programming.dev 23 points 5 months ago

The text of the bill specifies

when viewed as a whole by a reasonable person, is indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual.

So it's not trying to chase specific implementations but using a "reasonable person" test (which I would argue is a good thing)

[-] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

So if I make AI porn of a celebrity but give her a face tattoo saying AI generated then its legal?

[-] gnutrino@programming.dev 7 points 5 months ago

Doubt it, a reasonable person will generally be able to tell if you're obviously taking the piss with the law. Feel free to try it and let us know how you get on though.

[-] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

But that is not what the bill says, the reasonable person is not evaluating my intent, it's evaluating if the video is "indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual" which in this case it would be very distinguishable since the individual does not have said face tattoo.

[-] AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

How does your legal team compare to Scarlett Johansen's? There's your answer where the line is.

[-] fern@lemmy.autism.place 2 points 5 months ago

We're not talking about Scarlets team here, what about Jane Doe?

[-] winkerjadams@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 months ago

When does parody/fair use come into play? If it's a caricature of the person is that okay?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Defamation is not parody. Fake porn of someone is absolutely defamation.

I can't legally make a "parody" of you but you're a pedophile.

Edit: Since there seems to be some confusion, I am not calling them a pedophile, I'm saying I can't make some sort of fake of them as a pedophile and call it a parody.

[-] winkerjadams@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 months ago

I asked a question and you called me a pedophile. Bit of an over reaction?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I'm literally doing the opposite of calling you a pedophile. I'm saying it would be illegal to call you a pedophile and claim it's a parody. That's not an excuse for defamation.

And I said that because I am assuming you are not a pedophile.

I'm not sure why you didn't get that.

[-] ticho@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

A bit of unfortunate wording there. :) I had to go back and reread it slowly in order to understand what you meant.

[-] ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 5 months ago

Ironically, the face tattoo might convince some people it's real, since AI has a well known problem with writing coherent text.

I don't think that's what it means.

A depiction which is authentic might refer to provenance.

If someone authorises me to make a pornographic depiction of them, surely that's not illegal. It's authentic.

So it's not a question of whether the depiction appears to be AI generated, it's really about whether a reasonable person would conclude that the image is a depiction of a specific person.

That means tattoos, extra limbs, third books, et cetera won't side step this law.

[-] teft@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

So the old libel trick where you give the character a small dick should work?

[-] randon31415@lemmy.world -3 points 5 months ago

There are billions of people. Find the right one, and a "reasonable person" could not tell the difference.

Image a law that said you cannot name your baby a name if someone else's name starts with the same letter. After 26 names, all future names would be illegal. The law essentially would make naming babies illegal.

The "alphabet" in this case is the distict visual depiction of all people. As long as the visual innumeration of "reasonable people" is small enough, it essentially makes any generation illegal. Conversely, if "reasonable people" granulated fine enough, it makes avoiding prosecution trivial by adding minor conflicting details.

[-] callouscomic@lemm.ee 9 points 5 months ago

You should maybe do a little more reading on the word "reasonable."

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

"The right one" according to whom? There are two sides to a court case. The opposition can find all kinds of ways to show that person is not reasonable since they can't recognize a very good simulation of someone's face, just like they can show someone who is shortsighted didn't see the car crash like they said they did.

this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
752 points (98.6% liked)

News

23655 readers
4455 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS