Intimate AI-Created (Or CGI) Images illegal?

[IkeaGnome]

2 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

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.

 

Spain is already trying to figure this out.

AI-generated naked child images shock Spanish town of Almendralejo - BBC News

[YoungBlade]

14 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

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)_/¯ 

5 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

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.

 

I don't think you understand US culture on this. Although it's incredibly rare to see that in a newspaper, as nudity is not seen as being as culturally acceptable in media for general audiences, it is not illegal in any way. It's just not done. Magazines intended for older audiences absolutely do feature content like that, just not magazines for general consumption. But again, even if the magazine is intended for general consumption, it wouldn't be illegal - they would just face potential public backlash.

 

Public figures actually have fewer protections for laws like this, because criticizing them is seen as a form of political speech, which is highly protected. Basically all laws in this area give less protection to public figures than ordinary people. This was actually just recently used by Trump to stop portions of his gag order, as while Mike Pence is going to testify, he is a public political figure, and therefore, Trump's First Amendment right to criticize a former VP trumps the court's order meant to protect a witness.

 

So no, this law will not be used to stop criticism of public figures. If it ever is, it will be struck down by the courts, because political speech like that is always protected.

[Mark Kaine]

Just now, IkeaGnome said:

Spain is already trying to figure this out.

AI-generated naked child images shock Spanish town of Almendralejo - BBC News

yeah, well, but that doesn't sound like its about a celebrity or something?  

i don't think this is something legal in any way already  - again i don't see why it matters if its AI generated or not... 

[Mark Kaine]

3 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

don't think you understand US culture on this.

this is entirely possible......... i was just trying to point out the differences here and said i don't think this would fly in the eu.... its against everything European culture stands for (freedom of expression, especially through art...)

 

 

3 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

Public figures actually have fewer protections for laws like this, because criticizing them is seen as a form of political speech, which is highly protected. Basically all laws in this area give less protection to public figures than ordinary people

this is what I've been saying though... you cant do the same with none prominent people... basically the law says "you benefit from being a celebrity  - so deal with it"

 

doesn't mean a celebrity couldn't sue, of course they can, but it's likely it would backfire heavily on them (say goodbye to being a celebrity basically)  

same goes for politicians obviously... 

[Mark Kaine]

12 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

Although it's incredibly rare to see that in a newspaper, as nudity is not seen as being as culturally acceptable in media for general audiences,

this is probably the main difference here - like people going topless etc, in most European countries (but certainly not all) this is seen as completely normal... 

 

and yes, in magazines etc, even tv (afaik) after 22h everything goes lol... 

 

Spoiler

reminds me of something i saw in NYC, a woman , completely naked, except she wore like see through plastic bags... and im pretty sure she only did that because it was raining,  apparently a homeless person  - no one even seemed to notice her.... this is something i found highly disturbing because its something you just wouldn't ever see in Europe,  not even close)

ie: "cultural differences" 

 

ps: NYC was hilarious anyway when i was there in the 90s mind you... cops selling dope in central park, dudes trying to rob you and just leave when you gave them "D-Marks".... 

 

no traffic rules whatsoever  ~ just hilarious all around. 

 

loved the burgers and coffee tho! 10/10

 

[YoungBlade]

16 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

this is entirely possible......... i was just trying to point out the differences here and said i don't think this would fly in the eu.... its against everything European culture stands for (freedom of expression, especially through art...)

 

 

this is what I've been saying though... you cant do the same with none prominent people... basically the law says "you benefit from being a celebrity  - so deal with it"

 

doesn't mean a celebrity couldn't sue, of course they can, but it's likely it would backfire heavily on them (say goodbye to being a celebrity basically)  

same goes for politicians obviously... 

If the law was used that way, it would also go against everything American culture stands for. But that will not happen, because if it does, the law will be struck down. Less controversial laws have been struck down on such grounds in the past. Obviously, some random celebrity could try to use the law that way, but it would go nowhere, and New York has a pretty decent anti-SLAPP law, which makes it illegal to try to silence public critics with this type of law. That means that if a celebrity tries to use this New York law frivolously, it will backfire on them.

 

Being allowed to criticize public figures however you want, in whatever medium you want, as harshly as you want (as long as it does not result in demonstrable real-world harm) is something so important that it is actually enshrined in the US Constitution, which is surprising considering how tiny the US Constitution is compared to most other countries. The fact that it was put in there shows how important it is.

 

Our First Amendment is more extensive than anything the EU has. It even protects hate speech and genocide denial - which I know is outlawed in many European countries. The reason the libel and slander laws here require demonstrating malicious intent or extreme negligence is because, otherwise, spreading information that harms someone else is protected free speech. You have to be able to prove in court that the person's speech actually harmed you in a measurable, tangible way - saying that it just hurt your feelings or your relationships doesn't cut it.

 

That First Amendment framework is core to the entire legal system here, so this law will not escape it.

[Eigenvektor]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

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

Posting nude images of other people without their consent is illegal in Europe (or at least Germany), the same way it is illegal in the US. Example:

https://www.dw.com/en/in-germany-your-ex-must-destroy-nude-photos-on-request/a-18934921

Note that this was posted in 2015, AI was not really a thing yet.

 

Innocent until proven guilty and all that, but if you create/draw/generate nude images of another person and that person sues you for libel, you'll likely have a hard time to convince a judge without any paperwork to prove otherwise.

 

I'm not sure the "it's art" argument would work very well for AI generated images. Afaik there were a few cases already were it was ruled that AI generated images do not enjoy copyright. In fact they often violate copyright, if they were trained on copyrighted material without proper permission.

 

And, for example, in Germany there's the "Recht am eigenen Bild" (roughly "right to one's own image"). A person has the sole right to determine if and when an image of them can be published. Of course we can debate whether an AI generated image that shows a person's likeness counts as an image of that person. Don't think we'll find an answer to this unless somebody tried already and the case went before a judge.

[Mark Kaine]

26 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

If the law was used that way

-snip-

ah, ok, yeah, i guess i didn't really understand that, its similar to here - but different  - and I'll admit the 1st amendment doesn't really mean anything to me - but i get it its "different". just like there probably were traffic rules in NYC in the 90s, i just couldn't figure them out! basically "try to survive and beware of taxis"

thanks for explaining (im still not sure about the importance of this "anti ai law" though,  but i get it probably won't be abused in the way i imagined )

[IkeaGnome]

4 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

ah, ok, yeah, i guess i didn't really understand that, its similar to here - but different  - and I'll admit the 1st amendment doesn't really mean anything to me - but i get it its "different". just like there probably were traffic rules in NYC in the 90s, i just couldn't figure them out! basically "try to survive and beware of taxis"

The 1st amendment isn't well understood here either. It gives you "free speech", but within certain grounds. i.e, it's not illegal for me to say "I don't like this person". If I said "I could kill this person", they could in theory press charges against me. 

 

It protects us from the government. I can openly say I disagree with "certain policy", and they can't try to jail me for just saying it. They'd have to prove a crime was committed. 

 

It's kind of hard to describe the nuances without getting all political. If you just read it as "free speech", I could say "*this person* makes illegal drugs in their garage". However, if that makes it to the point to where the cops go breaking down their door, or effects their personal life they could sue for libel. It's complicated because it's vague on purpose. 

[YoungBlade]

12 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

The 1st amendment isn't well understood here either. It gives you "free speech", but within certain grounds. i.e, it's not illegal for me to say "I don't like this person". If I said "I could kill this person", they could in theory press charges against me. 

 

It protects us from the government. I can openly say I disagree with "certain policy", and they can't try to jail me for just saying it. They'd have to prove a crime was committed. 

 

It's kind of hard to describe the nuances without getting all political. If you just read it as "free speech", I could say "*this person* makes illegal drugs in their garage". However, if that makes it to the point to where the cops go breaking down their door, or effects their personal life they could sue for libel. It's complicated because it's vague on purpose. 

You may want to watch this Legal Eagle video on YouTube, it goes over some common misconceptions about things not covered by the First Amendment:

 

Your example of saying that you "could kill this person" is likely wrong. I'm not a lawyer, but the test for that would most likely be the "fighting words" doctrine and the court has been narrowing this category of unprotected speech for the last several decades. Simply saying that you have the capacity to kill someone, in and of itself, is probably protected by the First Amendment. You would need to make a more clear threat, or say those words while doing something like brandishing a weapon, in order for it not to be protected.

 

Your example about effectively having someone swated by lying about them making drugs is probably correct, though, assuming you actually were lying. If that person actually is making illegal drugs, or you have a reason to believe that they are, it probably still is protected free speech.

 

As for the First Amendment being "vague on purpose," we'll have to agree to disagree. The idea seems pretty clear - the government cannot make any laws that abridge the freedoms of religious expression, speech, the press, or public assembly. The nuances are found in case law, not in the wording of the amendment itself.

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, YoungBlade said:

You may want to watch this Legal Eagle video on YouTube, it goes over some common misconceptions about things not covered by the First Amendment:

 

Your example of saying that you "could kill this person" is likely wrong. I'm not a lawyer, but the test for that would most likely be the "fighting words" doctrine and the court has been narrowing this category of unprotected speech for the last several decades. Simply saying that you have the capacity to kill someone, in and of itself, is probably protected by the First Amendment. You would need to make a more clear threat, or say those words while doing something like brandishing a weapon, in order for it not to be protected.

 

Your example about effectively having someone swated by lying about them making drugs is probably correct, though, assuming you actually were lying. If that person actually is making illegal drugs, or you have a reason to believe that they are, it probably still is protected free speech.

 

As for the First Amendment being "vague on purpose," we'll have to agree to disagree. The idea seems pretty clear - the government cannot make any laws that abridge the freedoms of religious expression, speech, the press, or public assembly. The nuances are found in case law, not in the wording of the amendment itself.

and this is why these things are always a two-edged sword, maybe saying "i want to kill this person" is legal (i honestly don't know why it wouldn't be) but, if that person gets killed "randomly" you're going to have a hard time to prove it wasn't you, or at least you will definitely be suspect #1 ...

 

im not saying that's the law (anywhere) but im saying it could probably be interpreted in that way, hence two-edged sword...

 

 

1 hour ago, Eigenvektor said:

Posting nude images of other people without their consent is illegal in Europe (or at least Germany)

i take it you haven't read a newspaper in a looooooong time, its not illegal *at all* if its a caricature of a public figure, aka "art"... *especially* in Germany lmao

 

you may not like the art (free country after all) but you have to respect it anyway... people have the right to sue, sure, but the risk of ridicule is *high*

 

like you're saying "people" when its really about public figures and especially politicians ... there's a difference! criticism, in art form,  is not illegal,  and for very good reasons! 

 

 

1 hour ago, Eigenvektor said:

the same way it is illegal in the US.

no, i don't think its illegal in the US, *except* you can prove malicious intent,  etc. (and even then "free speech", man )

 

 

 

 

 

[Quackers101]

issue with how AI is fed, to who should complain about AI content.

As some or in future, where a lot of data is mixed or used differently, if it borrows from a lot of free assets but looks similar to 1000 or more paid assets and wants to claim it's taken from their work. Or AI that generates its own images and not from "others", if those could be targeted as well. Then to a mixed input from both human and AI.

As here it comes to a persons identity, but a lot of people could look similar to the same person, if not extra details are given like their name + face etc.
At what point would be illegal or not, for the grey zone, but I guess overall to stay safe is not to upload other's faces/ID and use "realistic humans".

[Taf the Ghost]

4 hours ago, YoungBlade said:

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

What we're seeing a return to Criminal Defamation standards in a lot of areas. Which isn't a bad thing. It used to exist until the "free spirit" period of the mid-1900s and the consequences have been pretty catastrophic for public discourse.  Reputations absolutely matter and have real, durable value in life. Now we just call them "Brands" and it makes sense why the laws are swinging back that way.

4 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

Spain is already trying to figure this out.

AI-generated naked child images shock Spanish town of Almendralejo - BBC News

When the first fully functional AI Image generators landed, it was extremely clear the "normal space" wasn't ready to deal with what was about to be unleashed.  Having mentioned a return to Criminal Defamation, we'll likely see the bolstering of Obscenity Laws.  That's really the way to handle this stuff.  But nothing is good about having to deal with all of it.

[StDragon]

So basically, it's a victimless crime, but exceedingly immoral content.

AI. Where all your dreams, fantasies, horrors, and for some, all at the same time come true.

Humanity isn't ready.

[Eigenvektor]

10 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

i take it you haven't read a newspaper in a looooooong time, its not illegal *at all* if its a caricature of a public figure, aka "art"... *especially* in Germany lmao

A caricature of a public figure is a long way removed from a photo (or photo-realistic) depiction of a private citizen in a compromising situation. Public figures do not enjoy the same protections as private citizens do in many ways. Though I suspect you'd still have a hard time to sell generated nudes of politicians as a caricature rather than defamation, at least as long as they do not somehow provide a satirical take on an actual/current event.

 

10 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

like you're saying "people" when its really about public figures and especially politicians ... there's a difference! criticism, in art form,  is not illegal,  and for very good reasons!

I haven't mentioned public figures once until now and never even had them in mind. I'm thinking of ordinary people who are the victims of revenge porn. That's the people this law is supposed to protect. It's supposed to prevent the argument of "it's AI generated, so it's not actually a picture of this person" when it looks 100% the same.

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, Eigenvektor said:

A caricature of a public figure is a long way removed from a photo (or photo-realistic) depiction of a private citizen in a compromising situation. Public figures do not enjoy the same protections as private citizens do in many ways. Though I suspect you'd still have a hard time to sell generated nudes of politicians as a caricature rather than defamation, at least as long as they do not somehow provide a satirical take on an actual/current event.

 

I haven't mentioned public figures once until now and never even had them in mind. I'm thinking of ordinary people who are the victims of revenge porn. That's the people this law is supposed to protect. It's supposed to prevent the argument of "it's AI generated, so it's not actually a picture of this person" when it looks 100% the same.

we have drawings of caricatures (semi nude) that look very AI like , even though they're probably already 20 years old by now lol.... again its not illegal or anything and it "shouldn't" matter if its "AI" or not when the result looks almost the same...

 

 

and yes, i understand you didn't,  but frankly you didn't follow the conversation because thats what everyone else been talking about,  since that was my initial concern,  ie "free speech" in regards of public figures, and we have us citizens here saying "its not illegal" in their country either,  albeit culturally not accepted (nude=bad) 

 

but yes i agree, its obviously not the same for none public figures...

 

 

[Kisai]

On 10/27/2023 at 7:43 AM, Robert G. said:

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.

They're just trying to get ahead of the curve. But I don't expect anyone over the age of 40 to understand how "AI" tech works enough to write something that would be effective at what they intended.

 

On 10/27/2023 at 7:43 AM, Robert G. said:

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.  

 

 

Realistically no new law is needed. It's illegal, basically anywhere that has a film or music recording industry to use the actor or musician's likeness without their consent as it violates their publicity rights.

 

So "deepfake" porn of celebrities is already covered. No new laws are needed there. What is needed are laws that make it apply to all non-consentual material (particuarly porn) featuring a non-fictitious entity. You open a massive can of worms if you don't explicitly call out "of REAL, LIVING (OR DEAD) people". Because AI's aren't people, so a deepfake of Vocaloid Miku is not a something that would be covered by this law, it would be covered by trademark violation. Not would a deepfake of a CG, Anime, cartoon, or non-existing humanoid creature. You can not seek consent from whom does not exist.

 

And here's the thing, $chan'ers have been making fake nudes pretty much since inception of the site. Literately the term "photoshopping" means to alter an image in a way it was not originally presented.

 

Make the law too broad, any photoshopping to correct errors becomes illegal. Only the person in the photo can approve changes to the photo. They're not gonna do that. That's simply too much of their time to approve every use of their photo's by news and magazine sources. They have better things to do.

 

Make the law not broad enough, eg only covering visual works, and ignoring audio works, and then people will just make pieces of the work independently (eg, an image sliced up into pieces, photoshoped by AI and then re-stitched together in the client, rather than as one image. That ends up working around a narrowly defined "visual work" because the visual work was only defined as a single work.

 

Anyway, not gonna nitpick this. All I'm saying is that I expect people will get the wrong idea of how AI is used in their daily lives, and try to make define something illegal that will have the unintended consequences of banning iPhones because they use AI in ARKit.