“It’s time to give victims their day in court and the tools they need to fight back,” says Sen. Dick Durbin as the DEFIANCE Act heads to the House.

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.

  • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
    2·
    4 months ago

    So you’re saying if someone makes a nude that is remotely similar to your likeness you can sue them.

    The law specifies that the images are indistinguishable from reality and are presented as you, directly or indirectly.

    What do you do about identical twins if one chooses to be a porn star and takes self shots? Wouldn’t it look the same? Is it a crime to sell nudes if you have an identical twin?

    If the images were of twin A and presented as twin B, I think this law would apply, as it would be fake porn of twin B.

    What about anybody who is not related but looks VERY SIMILAR - we’ve probably all heard stories of this happening.

    Again, if it’s being presented as someone it’s not, that’s an issue.

    Finally, how do you know if it’s a US citizen that created the image vs anybody in any other country not bound by US laws?

    Then the law does not apply. That’s literally how all laws work.

    What if an AI creates a nude and then a child is born, and 20 years later they grow up to look identical to the ai generated image?

    Was it presented as a nude of that person that did not yet exist? Impressive that they knew what their parents would name them ahead of time. Again, it must be presented as this person, directly or indirectly. This scenario couldn’t happen.

    Regarding trying to ruin someone’s image, I imagine that would indeed fall under some form of defamation laws, although not slander as that is specifically spoken words. I do agree we must tread carefully regarding free speech rights, however are we not also expected to have our rights to privacy? Even if someone isn’t trying to defame us, even if an image is fake, if at face value it’s completely indistinguishable from being real does it make a difference? Obviously there’s no simple solution and I think I agree with you that a law such as this probably isn’t it.

    I’m a bit lost on your last bit, however. Are you saying this law will further push AI into the hands of large corporations? I don’t see that, so much as see them being forced to implement stronger filters, while pushing users to the open source community in search to get around them. Horny people gonna horny and this law won’t stop that, it’d only stop public facing models from producing such content and stop individuals from distributing it.