157
Taylor Swift AI images prompt US bill to tackle nonconsensual, sexual deepfakes
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
157 points (91.5% liked)
News
23284 readers
4860 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What a weird populist law tbh. There's already an established law framework that covers this: defamation. Not a lawyer but it seems like this should be addressed instead of writing up some new memes.
They'll use this as an opportunity to sneak in more government spyware/control is my guess.
It's not defamation. And the new law will likely fail to hold up to 1A scrutiny, if the description of it is accurate (it often is not, for multiple reasons that include these bills generally changing over time). This is more of a free speech issue than photoshopping someone's head onto someone else's nude body, because no real person's head or body is involved, just an inhumanly good artist drawing a nude, and on top of that the law punishes possession, not just creation.
An example question any judge is going to have for the prosecutor if this goes to trial is how the image the law bans is meaningfully different from writing a lurid description of what someone looks like naked without actually knowing. Can you imagine going to jail because you have in your pocket a note someone else wrote and handed you that describes Trump as having a small penis? Or a drawn image of Trump naked? Because that's what's being pitched here.
It actually proposes "possession with the intention to distribute" which just show what a meme law this is. How do you determine the intention to distribute for an image?
And I disagree with your take that this can't be defamation. Quick googling says the general consensus is that this would fall in the defamation family of laws which makes absolute sense since a deepfake is an intentional misrepresentation.
I guess if you have AI generate the senate house speaker fucking her in the ass in an alley full of trash while she holds money bags, it's then political satire and protected?
When you find it broken down into individual baggies?
Even better: Intentional infliction of emotional distress
There are business interests behind this. There is a push to turn a likeness (and voice, etc.) into an intellectual property. This bill is not about protecting anyone from emotional distress or harm to their reputation. It is about requiring "consent", which can obviously be acquired with money (and also commercial porn is an explicit exception). This bill would establish this new kind of IP in principle. It's a baby step but still a step.
You can see in this thread that proposing to expand this to all deepfakes gets a lot of upvotes. Indeed, there are bills out there that go all the way and would even make "piracy" of this IP a federal crime.
Taylor Swift could be out there, making music or having fun, while also making money from "her consent", IE by licensing her likeness. She could star in movies or makes cameos by deepfaking her on some nobody actor. She could license all sorts of youtube channels. Or how about a webcam chat with Taylor? She could be an avatar for ChatGPT, or she could be deepfaked onto one of those Indian or Kenyan low-wage workers who do tech support now.
We are not quite there yet, technologically, but we will obviously get there soonish. Fakes in the past were just some pervs who were making fan art of a sort. Now the smell of money is in the air.
This seems like the most likely scenario tbh. I'm not sure whether personal likeness IP is a bad thing per se but one thing is sure - it's not being done to "protect the kids".
It is. It means that famous people (or their heirs, or maybe just the rights-owner) can make even more money from their fame without having to do extra work. That should be opposed out of principle.
The extra money for the licensing fees has to come from somewhere. The only place it can come from is working people.
It would mean more inequality; more entrenchment of the current elite. I see no benefit to society.
When you steal a person's likeness for profit or defame them, then that's a CIVIL matter.
This bill will make AI sexualization a CRIMINAL matter.
Where do you see that?
Here:
That doesn't seem to be correct. More like a typo as criminalize =/= criminal law.
Always interesting to see people who even admit that they don't know, but they still have a rather strong opinion.
So only lawyers can have an opinion on law and be allowed public discourse? Lol
Nobody's saying you should be barred from participating, you just rightfully look like an idiot while you do it.
Obviously not. Everyone is allowed to voice their opinion and has to accept that other people might find his opinion stupid and tell them so.
My point is more, that you seem on one hand to realize that it's a complex matter and you lack the expert knowledge (I'm not a lawyer), but on other hand still feel the need to express your opinion. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. It's extremely common. Just something I have fun pointing out.
How interesting that someone chose to comment, here of all places, the comment section.
And I have chosen to comment on that comment, go figure.
When that opinion is about what a Law does or does not cover? Yes, only a Lawyer's opinion should be involved. What a Law should/n't cover or how it should/n't work? Layperson's opinion is important.
Hi, lawyer here.
Everyone's opinion about the law matters, including what it covers, whether it's vague, whether it applies, etc. This is Lemmy--not court. We're in the town square here. Drinking yourself through three years of law school doesn't imbue you with magical abilities to interpret laws as though they were religious texts. It's just an education--not a miracle. If lawyers always knew what the law meant and laypeople always didn't, no one would be fretting over hotly anticipated SCOTUS opinions, because everyone would already know the outcome.
But wouldn't you know it, reasonable people sometimes disagree, and among those reasonable people, quite often, are non-lawyers.
As it turns out, non-lawyers often have an outsized influence on the law. Did you know that Donald Trump has never been to law school? Unbelievable, right? But hard to fathom though it may be, the big orange idiot hasn't sat in on a single hour of L1 Torts. In fact he may have never even have seen the inside of a law library. Yet his opinion about the law has a tremendous impact, bigger even than Dr. Moose's, because checking the "went to law school" box really doesn't mean a hell of a lot outside of very limited situations.
Personally, I'm much more interested in Dr. Moose's opinion on this law than I am Rudy Giuliani's, or even Clarence Thomas's (and both those guys went to law school), and it's no bother to me that he's not a lawyer. In fact, it's probably a mark in his favor.
If you're not interested in his opinion because he's not a lawyer, well hey, that's totally allowed, but you can easily ignore his comments without being pedantic. Or maybe you could just concede that there's probably a bunch of strong opinions you also hold on subjects on which you're not an expert. In fact, the whole lot of omg-not-a-lawyer! non-lawyers pitching little fits in this comment thread probably have strong feelings about war even though many of them have probably never put on a uniform. They might have strong feelings about healthcare despite never having darkened the door of a medical school. Shit, we might all even have strong feelings about politics despite never having gotten a single vote in a single election, ever. Can you believe it?!
Yeah. It's just an opinion. If you're gatekeeping 'having an unqualified opinion' you should probably just lock yourself in your house and bar the windows, 'cause it's gonna be an uphill battle for you.
My dear self declared Law involved personage. Nope. It matters not one whit what the layperson's opinion about what a Law covers or not as the sole arbiters are the Judiciary. Any layperson's opinion involved is a matter of "should" or "shouldn't. They have no say in the final passed Law, only the Courts do. To claim otherwise is to pretend "sovereign citizen" is an actual thing.
But the reality wasn't important to you. Was it, law boi.
Aww. You sound mad. Don't be mad. Sorry if I got under your skin. Have a Coke and a smile.
A: high sugar drinks are a leading cause of diabetes and should be avoided. I recommend rum instead.
B: don't make me angry, you won't like me when I'm, angry.
C: you are not the boss of me.
Hard disagree, only opinion of people who actually read the law - matter on the topic. Everything else just creates more confusion. We are on the internet most people never bother to go and actually read what they are talking about - and that includes me.
I know, Congress should be ashamed of themselves. We would be hard pressed to find a group that had a worse understanding of technology
Congress is a really low bar, we should try to be at least better than that.