The creation of sexually explicit deepfake content is likely to become a criminal offense in England and Wales as concern grows over the use of artificial intelligence to exploit and harass women.
I understand this won’t be a popular statement, but to me, it falls under I know it when I see it.
I don’t know the exact location of the line, but there is no artistic, scientific, or any other kind of merit to someone making deepfake nudes of a 14 year old and circulating them around school. The victim comes first in these cases. I don’t want to debate what is or isn’t child porn. I think we all agree this girl was a victim and this should never have happened.
To get away from the minors-argument: it’s just like how I can’t go around shooting photos of random people when they’re naked and then circulate them. Hell you can barely do that even if they aren’t naked except in particular circumstances where consent to be photographed is taken as a given.
Non-consensual deepfakes should, by and large, not be allowed.
Deepfakes are already so good in many cases that the differences are basically trivial. The gulf between writing and committing murder is far wider. Not a great parallel IMO.
How would you feel if someone spread nude deepfakes of you? Your partner? Your child? Are you telling me that’s just like writing about doing something and not closer to committing the act and you’d just shrug and move on with your life?
Deepfakes are already so good in many cases that the differences are basically trivial.
Then if anything it gives deniability to real nudes. “It wasn’t me, it’s fake!”
How would you feel if someone spread nude deepfakes of you? Your partner? Your child? Are you telling me that’s just like writing about doing something and not closer to committing the act and you’d just shrug and move on with your life?
It depends. There’s already a legal framework for defamation, so if the deepfake is made public and has a negative impact on me I can use that avenue. Simply making the deepfake, though, is akin to drawing me naked (not that anyone wound want to do that). It’s deeply weird but should not be illegal IMO.
It’s not about deniability. I don’t want incredibly photorealistic nudes of me or my family spreading around with little to no consequences. I certainly don’t want to get into prolonged court battles over it. Why does somebody’s unfettered use of AI trump my dignity as a person? We have restrictions on photography and video baked into our legal framework. Why should this be any different?
I can’t imagine you would be so flippant if this was happening to you.
How is a paper facsimile generated with glass and light any more or less real than a near-duplication in a digital format? You are splitting hairs here. If the average person essentially can’t distinguish between a deep fake and a “real“ photo or agrees it is sufficiently similar for their purposes than it’s moot. Your argument hinges on whether or not something is “real“ and that is not a prior that most people agree with, nor is it a scientific or otherwise objective/measurable benchmark. You can’t just vacillate between science-y sounding responses and opinions like that.
There are deep fakes that look more “real” than some old photos. Where does that factor into this?
I’m being dead serious here when I ask: what constitutes “real”? Because that seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting in your responses. And I don’t really see that word tossed around much in legal frameworks that’s for sure, certainly not as you seem to be using it. I’ve been in the visual/audio media industry for 15 years and I can tell you that your lines in the sand are yours and yours alone. The thousands of releases I’ve been responsible for over the course of my career make that pretty obvious.
I’m being dead serious here when I ask: what constitutes “real”? Because that seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting in your responses.
That seems pretty obvious to me: a capture of a person’s actual body, rather than a fabrication based on other source materials or created out of whole cloth. I’m not sure what your counterpoint might be. Do you consider CGI to be “real”?
If you generate a deepfake it’s based on information garnered from the person’s actual body/face/etc. How is that any different? None of what you are describing is particularly distinguishing or measurable and I’m still failing to see where “real” falls here. If you use my face to generate a fake, because you have to use an image of my face to make that happen which according to you is “real,” how is that functionally any different? You’re still using my “real” image or whatever.
This reads to me like…I don’t know, if I right click a photo and choose “duplicate” on my computer then I’ve no longer got the “real” image. Because it’s “new” pixels not comprised of the original. You are trivializing the source of the image, aka a person.
I understand this won’t be a popular statement, but to me, it falls under I know it when I see it.
I don’t know the exact location of the line, but there is no artistic, scientific, or any other kind of merit to someone making deepfake nudes of a 14 year old and circulating them around school. The victim comes first in these cases. I don’t want to debate what is or isn’t child porn. I think we all agree this girl was a victim and this should never have happened.
To get away from the minors-argument: it’s just like how I can’t go around shooting photos of random people when they’re naked and then circulate them. Hell you can barely do that even if they aren’t naked except in particular circumstances where consent to be photographed is taken as a given.
Non-consensual deepfakes should, by and large, not be allowed.
That’s wildly different. It’s like saying that writing about murder and actually committing it are the same thing.
Deepfakes are already so good in many cases that the differences are basically trivial. The gulf between writing and committing murder is far wider. Not a great parallel IMO.
How would you feel if someone spread nude deepfakes of you? Your partner? Your child? Are you telling me that’s just like writing about doing something and not closer to committing the act and you’d just shrug and move on with your life?
Then if anything it gives deniability to real nudes. “It wasn’t me, it’s fake!”
It depends. There’s already a legal framework for defamation, so if the deepfake is made public and has a negative impact on me I can use that avenue. Simply making the deepfake, though, is akin to drawing me naked (not that anyone wound want to do that). It’s deeply weird but should not be illegal IMO.
It’s not about deniability. I don’t want incredibly photorealistic nudes of me or my family spreading around with little to no consequences. I certainly don’t want to get into prolonged court battles over it. Why does somebody’s unfettered use of AI trump my dignity as a person? We have restrictions on photography and video baked into our legal framework. Why should this be any different?
I can’t imagine you would be so flippant if this was happening to you.
Because it isn’t real. Why should someone be charged for creating a work of fiction? Do you not see how dangerous that precedent is?
How is a paper facsimile generated with glass and light any more or less real than a near-duplication in a digital format? You are splitting hairs here. If the average person essentially can’t distinguish between a deep fake and a “real“ photo or agrees it is sufficiently similar for their purposes than it’s moot. Your argument hinges on whether or not something is “real“ and that is not a prior that most people agree with, nor is it a scientific or otherwise objective/measurable benchmark. You can’t just vacillate between science-y sounding responses and opinions like that.
There are deep fakes that look more “real” than some old photos. Where does that factor into this?
I’m being dead serious here when I ask: what constitutes “real”? Because that seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting in your responses. And I don’t really see that word tossed around much in legal frameworks that’s for sure, certainly not as you seem to be using it. I’ve been in the visual/audio media industry for 15 years and I can tell you that your lines in the sand are yours and yours alone. The thousands of releases I’ve been responsible for over the course of my career make that pretty obvious.
That seems pretty obvious to me: a capture of a person’s actual body, rather than a fabrication based on other source materials or created out of whole cloth. I’m not sure what your counterpoint might be. Do you consider CGI to be “real”?
If you generate a deepfake it’s based on information garnered from the person’s actual body/face/etc. How is that any different? None of what you are describing is particularly distinguishing or measurable and I’m still failing to see where “real” falls here. If you use my face to generate a fake, because you have to use an image of my face to make that happen which according to you is “real,” how is that functionally any different? You’re still using my “real” image or whatever.
This reads to me like…I don’t know, if I right click a photo and choose “duplicate” on my computer then I’ve no longer got the “real” image. Because it’s “new” pixels not comprised of the original. You are trivializing the source of the image, aka a person.