Intimate AI-Created (Or CGI) Images illegal?

[Robert G.]

My first post in the forum, let me know if I did something wrong!

 

Summary

New York State outlaws "intimate" images or videos, altered in a realistic manner or computer generated images, which are posted without consent of those who appear in them, AND with the intent to humiliate or blackmail.

Quote

From the bill/law:

"1. A person is guilty of unlawful dissemination or publication of an intimate image when:

(a) with intent to cause harm...

(b) the actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person did not consent to dissemination or publication"

 

My thoughts

I think this law makes sense, it's basically intending to outlaw deep-fake revenge porn. Especially given the "intent to cause harm" clause, which necessitates a burden of proof. But I really don't know if they could effectively enforce it. It might be a good first step in protecting people who are affected, giving them recourse they might not have had otherwise.  

 

Sources

 

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/politics/2023/10/26/hochul-signs-bill-into-law-on-ai-created-intimate-images

 

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S1042

[Dedayog]

Logical.  Not sure why this is a Tech News post though.

 

For your first post, I have to wonder by porn is your topic.

 

Then again, porn

 

Good call!

 

 

[Eigenvektor]

Title is a bit misleading, makes it sound like you're talking about AIs that are built to be intimate (i.e. simulate a partner or something)

 

Other than that, I don't really see the news. Posting nudes of other people without their consent was already illegal. Generating an "artificial nude" with AI support or drawing one (though that would take actual skill) should make no difference.

 

1 minute ago, Dedayog said:

Logical.  Not sure why this is a Tech News post though.

True, this is more about law and very superficially related to tech. It's basically: Posting a nude is illegal, no matter how you acquired it.

[thevictor390]

Worth pointing out that creating images and therefore the AI itself is in no way illegal. Only problem is posting someone's likeness without their consent (however you assembled it).

[YoungBlade]

Just now, Eigenvektor said:

Other than that, I don't really see the news. Posting nudes of other people without their consent was already illegal. Generating an "artificial nude" with AI support or drawing one (though that would take actual skill) should make no difference.

That's a question I have about this law, but it's one that would need an actual lawyer to answer. (Note: I am not a lawyer)

 

Basically, laws like this can sometimes have ramifications for previous laws because, by their very existence, they imply that the existing laws did not cover AI images. That could mean that other states are required to follow suit, because it could be cited to demonstrate that, because anti-revenge porn laws in another state don't explicitly mention AI images, those laws don't cover AI images.

 

So does this law actually harm current anti-revenge porn laws because it implies that AI generated intimate images were not included in prior legislation?

[Dedayog]

1 minute ago, YoungBlade said:

That's a question I have about this law, but it's one that would need an actual lawyer to answer. (Note: I am not a lawyer)

 

Basically, laws like this can sometimes have ramifications for previous laws because, by their very existence, they imply that the existing laws did not cover AI images. That could mean that other states are required to follow suit, because it could be cited to demonstrate that, because anti-revenge porn laws in another state don't explicitly mention AI images, those laws don't cover AI images.

 

So does this law actually harm current anti-revenge porn laws because it implies that AI generated intimate images were not included in prior legislation?

Kind of like how we keep adding laws to not discriminate based on sexuality now, but we already  have a law for years that says no discrimination.  It should cover everything, so no need to make sub laws.

 

[YoungBlade]

4 minutes ago, Dedayog said:

Kind of like how we keep adding laws to not discriminate based on sexuality now, but we already  have a law for years that says no discrimination.  It should cover everything, so no need to make sub laws.

That can be an issue. There was a case a while ago now where an anti-sexism law was used to cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, because requiring a man to wear pants or a woman to date only men implies that you are discriminating against them on the basis of their sex. You don't prohibit a woman from wearing a skirt, and therefore, you must not prohibit a man from doing that, because doing so is discrimination on the basis of sex by definition.

 

Future legislation, however well-intentioned, could actually undermine such rulings, by implying that the sex discrimination laws didn't actually cover those cases in the first place. At least, in theory. Again, I am not a lawyer.

[Eigenvektor]

7 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

So does this law actually harm current anti-revenge porn laws because it implies that AI generated intimate images were not included in prior legislation?

Good question (not a lawyer either). Did the existing law truly not cover that case? Were there loopholes that could theoretically be exploited? Or are they simply trying to make it more explicit?

[Dedayog]

14 minutes ago, thevictor390 said:

Worth pointing out that creating images and therefore the AI itself is in no way illegal. Only problem is posting someone's likeness without their consent (however you assembled it).

This.

 

If you take a pic of me and make me nude with or without AI... no.

 

If you take a nude pic and add my face with or without AI... no.

Etc.

[thevictor390]

14 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

That's a question I have about this law, but it's one that would need an actual lawyer to answer. (Note: I am not a lawyer)

 

Basically, laws like this can sometimes have ramifications for previous laws because, by their very existence, they imply that the existing laws did not cover AI images. That could mean that other states are required to follow suit, because it could be cited to demonstrate that, because anti-revenge porn laws in another state don't explicitly mention AI images, those laws don't cover AI images.

 

So does this law actually harm current anti-revenge porn laws because it implies that AI generated intimate images were not included in prior legislation?

Can you point out where the law talks about AI images? Because I don't see it. It's used in the justifcation, but the amendment to the law itself covers any image where the person is reasonably recognizable.

[Robert G.]

14 minutes ago, Dedayog said:

Logical.  Not sure why this is a Tech News post though.

 

For your first post, I have to wonder by porn is your topic.

 

Then again, porn

 

Good call!

 

 

Fair points lol. Honestly it was just in my news feed and last week Wan show discussed the bill that was introduced in New York about potentially banning 3d printers from printing gun parts. This reminded me of that, and because it's actually a law now and not a bill I figured I'd bring it up. 

 

Admittedly it could be considered more of a social news than a tech news, but considering the bill specifically calls out "altered by digitization" or cgi i thought it was warranted. 

14 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

Title is a bit misleading, makes it sound like you're talking about AIs that are built to be intimate (i.e. simulate a partner or something)

 

Other than that, I don't really see the news. Posting nudes of other people without their consent was already illegal. Generating an "artificial nude" with AI support or drawing one (though that would take actual skill) should make no difference.

 

True, this is more about law and very superficially related to tech. It's basically: Posting a nude is illegal, no matter how you acquired it.

That's fair, I realized after I hit post that it might imply chatbots not images/likeness, so my bad!

 

And specifically the bill calls out digitization, "alter an image in a realistic manner utilizing an image or images of a person, other than the person depicted, or computer generated images." So I figured that aspect was related to tech. 

 

As to the change in law or it not being covered before, my assumption is that since it could have been claimed that the image was fake, it therefore was not subject to the prior legal statute. IANAL, that's just my best guess as to why the change was necessary. 

 

[Robert G.]

32 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

Title is a bit misleading, makes it sound like you're talking about AIs that are built to be intimate (i.e. simulate a partner or something)

Changed the title to better reflect the topic, thanks for the input!

[Eigenvektor]

4 minutes ago, Robert G. said:

As to the change in law or it not being covered before, my assumption is that since it could have been claimed that the image was fake, it therefore was not subject to the prior legal statute. IANAL, that's just my best guess as to why the change was necessary.

My guess would be that making it more explicit primarily serves to make it easier to win the case, because you no longer have to argue such semantics. Even though, most likely, existing law would've already covered it (but was somewhat open to interpretation).

[manikyath]

having/making them isnt necessarily illegal, but spreading images that are made to look like a specific person (scratching AI out of it, because AI isnt even really the point here) can be seen as a form of defamation.. so if anything this is a clarification of the law, not making something illegal.

 

a recent case in belgium ruled that a bunch of minors who took pictures of their female classmates and used an app to "AI undress" them, are guilty of "creating and spreading intimate images of a minor" (dodging the word itself here.. because the law here does as well.)

 

the problem with AI isnt about what it can do, but how easy it can be made to do it.

[YoungBlade]

16 minutes ago, thevictor390 said:

Can you point out where the law talks about AI images? Because I don't see it. It's used in the justifcation, but the amendment to the law itself covers any image where the person is reasonably recognizable.

Uh... It's right there in 1(a), starting at line 10:

Quote

including an image created or altered by digitization, where such person may reason-ably be identified

This is saying that if an image is created by "digitization" - by a computer - that it counts. This would absolutely include AI images.

[Robert G.]

23 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

That can be an issue. There was a case a while ago now where an anti-sexism law was used to cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, because requiring a man to wear pants or a woman to date only men implies that you are discriminating against them on the basis of their sex. You don't prohibit a woman from wearing a skirt, and therefore, you must not prohibit a man from doing that, because doing so is discrimination on the basis of sex by definition.

 

Future legislation, however well-intentioned, could actually undermine such rulings, by implying that the sex discrimination laws didn't actually cover those cases in the first place. At least, in theory. Again, I am not a lawyer.

I will say that sometimes the laws are expanded/changed because the current ones were insufficient.

 

A good example is "hair discrimination", which might sound superficial, but had been a way of using dress codes to promote discrimination. Because it was an overall policy, and supposedly not intentionally singling out people, it often was not covered under anti-discrimination laws. So some places pass new laws prohibiting hair discrimination specifically.

[thevictor390]

1 minute ago, YoungBlade said:

Uh... It's right there in 1(a), starting at line 10:

This is saying that if an image is created by "digitization" - by a computer - that it counts. This would absolutely include AI images.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant that the law covers all digitally altered images, it does not write in AI specifically (which is a good thing IMO). Regular old Photoshop is just as illegal.

[YoungBlade]

Just now, thevictor390 said:

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant that the law covers all digitally altered images, it does not write in AI specifically (which is a good thing IMO). Regular old Photoshop is just as illegal.

In that case, my point would be even stronger, as it could then imply that simply photoshopping an image might have excluded it from being punishable under prior legislation. But again, I am not a lawyer.

 

3 minutes ago, Robert G. said:

I will say that sometimes the laws are expanded/changed because the current ones were insufficient.

 

A good example is "hair discrimination", which might sound superficial, but had been a way of using dress codes to promote discrimination. Because it was an overall policy, and supposedly not intentionally singling out people, it often was not covered under anti-discrimination laws. So some places pass new laws prohibiting hair discrimination specifically.

This can be the case, but I don't see how you could discriminate on the basis of someone's hair without also discriminating against them on the basis of sex, race, or religion - which are all protected by laws in every state.

 

It's not that such laws are bad per se, it's that they might necessitate the creation of similar laws in all states when, otherwise, prior legislation already did the job. By making the new legislation, it can imply that the old legistlation was not actually sufficient, when in reality, it may have been.

 

But again, again - I am not a lawyer.

[Robert G.]

2 minutes ago, thevictor390 said:

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant that the law covers all digitally altered images, it does not write in AI specifically (which is a good thing IMO). Regular old Photoshop is just as illegal.

You are both correct, it doesn't call out AI in the law specifically, it does in the article and the bill memo (from the bill sponsor representatives). Also, it does specify "alter an image in a realistic manner utilizing an image or images of a person, other than the person depicted", which implies deep-fakes. (I agree it's good it's not specific in the bill text).

[SorryBella]

1 hour ago, Dedayog said:

Kind of like how we keep adding laws to not discriminate based on sexuality now, but we already  have a law for years that says no discrimination.  It should cover everything, so no need to make sub laws.

 

Yes but lawyers are assholes. If its not inked, itll be used in someones defense.

[Mark Kaine]

2 hours ago, Eigenvektor said:

Title is a bit misleading, makes it sound like you're talking about AIs that are built to be intimate (i.e. simulate a partner or something)

 

Other than that, I don't really see the news. Posting nudes of other people without their consent was already illegal. Generating an "artificial nude" with AI support or drawing one (though that would take actual skill) should make no difference.

 

True, this is more about law and very superficially related to tech. It's basically: Posting a nude is illegal, no matter how you acquired it.

actually...this is hardcore censorship... i don't believe any of this would fly in the eu...

 

and also you didn't seem to notice the important part - 

2 hours ago, Robert G. said:

AND with the intent to humiliate or blackmail.

...

 

 

how do you even prove that? You don't,  hence this is pure 100% *censorship*

 

 

1 hour ago, thevictor390 said:

Regular old Photoshop is just as illegal.

yep..and with *no exceptions at all* because as soon the person shown thinks this is "to humiliate or blackmail" its straight up 100% illegal. 

 

Art just died lol, congratulations ig. 

[YoungBlade]

3 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

actually...this is hardcore censorship... i don't believe any of this would fly in the eu...

 

and also you didn't seem to notice the important part - 

...

 

 

how do you even prove that? You don't,  hence this is pure 100% *censorship*

The US First Amendment tends to be a lot stronger than most free speech laws in Europe. The reason why you have to prove malicious intent is because otherwise, the law would never fly here. It would be struck down immediately.

 

And you can prove malicious intent in court, it's just a high bar to reach, but it's fundamental to libel and slander laws here - again, because of the First Amendment.

 

I don't see how this law could be used for what is typically described as "censorship," unless you're a free speech absolutist, in which case, any law about speech or information ever is censorship.

[Mark Kaine]

5 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

The US First Amendment tends to be a lot stronger than most free speech laws in Europe. The reason why you have to prove malicious intent is because otherwise, the law would never fly here. It would be struck down immediately.

 

And you can prove malicious intent in court, it's just a high bar to reach, but it's fundamental to libel and slander laws here - again, because of the First Amendment.

 

I don't see how this law could be used for what is typically described as "censorship," unless you're a free speech absolutist, in which case, any law about speech or information ever is censorship.

yeah,  exactly,  on the surface i understand why they put it in there, but i just think in practice this just means a blanket censorship for any kind of "caricature" or similar aka actually legit art. 

 

ps: i mean this might be cultural differences for the most part? in Europe its completely normal to show drawings etc of nude "prominent people", in newspapers or magazines especially... basically as long its a prominent person there's basically an "almost anything goes" rule in place it would seem, hence why i find this new "law" highly concerning.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

[YoungBlade]

Just now, Mark Kaine said:

yeah,  exactly,  on the surface i understand why they put it in there, but i just think in practice this just means a blanket censorship for any kind of "caricature" or similar aka actually legit art. 

How is it any different from existing libel and slander legislation in regards to censorship of art?

[Mark Kaine]

8 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

How is it any different from existing libel and slander legislation in regards to censorship of art?

im not sure, but see above, this kind of stuff is pretty normal here lol, its not disallowed either,  so this law would just make it straight up illegal, which seems weird to me?

 

I don't see why there's a need to differentiate between AI and traditional art, both can be used in the same way.

 

edit: as said, as long its a prominent figure, there isn't much they can do, freedom of expression,  i suppose its called? 

 

And yes, its definitely different for none prominent people (doesn't seem fair on the surface either ig lol)

 

would need to look up the specific laws for "caricatures" or similar....