California could criminalize AI-generated revenge porn

[quaint]

OCRegister

But what happens in California if someone uses AI for something even more nefarious, such as creating and distributing pornography using someone’s likeness without their consent?

Assemblymember Tri Ta, R-Westminster, wants to make that a crime punishable by up to one year in county jail or a fine of up to $1,000.

It’s already a crime in California to distribute images, meant to be private, of another person without their consent — often referred to as “revenge porn.” And a 2019 bill signed into law created a pathway for victims to sue someone who created sexually explicit or exposing content that he or she did not create or consent to, like photo-shopping their face on pornographic material.

Scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee next week, the legislation is meant to cover “deep fakes,” meaning content that has been digitally altered, generally maliciously, that is sexually explicit or otherwise pornographic in nature.

“Deep fakes, for example, make headlines for concerns around misinformation and fake news. But the reality is this is almost wholly a violence against women problem that does not get significant attention,” said Adam Dodge, a California attorney and the CEO of EndTAB, an organization that helps victims of online abuse.

[Effete Snob]

1. Will that apply to all media?

[quaint]

3. Legal-oriented minds will need to sort it; I'm too busy giggling at the er, statue.

[Effete Snob]

4. Most legal-oriented minds...

...have a hard time criminalizing the production of fictitious artwork without running into First Amendment problems.

The result is that some sort of additional behavior would be needed beyond simply making artwork depicting people without their consent.

[RockRaven]

6. Well, the dictionary definition of pornography has an intent component...

"printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings." The artist could -- and IIRC has -- commented on their intent with that piece.

But of course dictionary definitions and common usage aren't what matter in a courtroom...

[Effete Snob]

8. Is revenge porn "intented to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings"?

The intent of revenge porn is to humiliate the victim, so using that definition would pretty much exclude revenge porn from being revenge porn.

[RockRaven]

9. That analysis ignores the audience or conflates the audience with the subject.

[Effete Snob]

10. ?

In your definition of pornography as "intended to be erotic" whose intent were you talking about?

Presumably, we are talking about the intent of the person producing it, no?

[RockRaven]

11. Intent of the producer/distributor for it to be erotic in the eyes of the recipients/audience.

The fact that the subject is humiliated/distressed/bothered doesn't make it not porn, though. That's what makes it "revenge." The supposed titillation of the audience is what makes it porn.

There are three parties/categories of people here, what was written previously that made a ridiculous or contradictory definition ignored the third one or mushed the second and third together.

[Auggie]

2. Do it, but make the punishment five years in prison or $10,000.

No more wrist slaps on shit like this

[RockRaven]

5. Once you've criminalized revenge porn, adding the AI aspect is just closing a loophole, frankly.

If distributing nude images of a person without their consent for erotic purposes is wrong, then it is wrong whether the images are genuine or not. The consent is the crux of the matter, not the provenance of the images.

[quaint]

7. This ↑