THE SENATE UNANIMOUSLY passed a bipartisan bill to provide recourse to victims of porn deepfakes — or sexually-explicit, non-consensual images created with artificial intelligence.

The legislation, called the Disrupt Explicit Forged Images and Non-Consensual Edits (DEFIANCE) Act — passed in Congress’ upper chamber on Tuesday.  The legislation has been led by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), as well as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in the House.

The legislation would amend the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to allow people to sue those who produce, distribute, or receive the deepfake pornography, if they “knew or recklessly disregarded” the fact that the victim did not consent to those images.

  • gnutrino@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    3 months ago

    The text of the bill specifies

    when viewed as a whole by a reasonable person, is indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual.

    So it’s not trying to chase specific implementations but using a “reasonable person” test (which I would argue is a good thing)

      • gnutrino@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Doubt it, a reasonable person will generally be able to tell if you’re obviously taking the piss with the law. Feel free to try it and let us know how you get on though.

        • TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          But that is not what the bill says, the reasonable person is not evaluating my intent, it’s evaluating if the video is “indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual” which in this case it would be very distinguishable since the individual does not have said face tattoo.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Defamation is not parody. Fake porn of someone is absolutely defamation.

            I can’t legally make a “parody” of you but you’re a pedophile.

            Edit: Since there seems to be some confusion, I am not calling them a pedophile, I’m saying I can’t make some sort of fake of them as a pedophile and call it a parody.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                I’m literally doing the opposite of calling you a pedophile. I’m saying it would be illegal to call you a pedophile and claim it’s a parody. That’s not an excuse for defamation.

                And I said that because I am assuming you are not a pedophile.

                I’m not sure why you didn’t get that.

                • ticho@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  A bit of unfortunate wording there. :) I had to go back and reread it slowly in order to understand what you meant.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I don’t think that’s what it means.

        A depiction which is authentic might refer to provenance.

        If someone authorises me to make a pornographic depiction of them, surely that’s not illegal. It’s authentic.

        So it’s not a question of whether the depiction appears to be AI generated, it’s really about whether a reasonable person would conclude that the image is a depiction of a specific person.

        That means tattoos, extra limbs, third books, et cetera won’t side step this law.

    • teft@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      So the old libel trick where you give the character a small dick should work?

    • randon31415@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      3 months ago

      There are billions of people. Find the right one, and a “reasonable person” could not tell the difference.

      Image a law that said you cannot name your baby a name if someone else’s name starts with the same letter. After 26 names, all future names would be illegal. The law essentially would make naming babies illegal.

      The “alphabet” in this case is the distict visual depiction of all people. As long as the visual innumeration of “reasonable people” is small enough, it essentially makes any generation illegal. Conversely, if “reasonable people” granulated fine enough, it makes avoiding prosecution trivial by adding minor conflicting details.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        “The right one” according to whom? There are two sides to a court case. The opposition can find all kinds of ways to show that person is not reasonable since they can’t recognize a very good simulation of someone’s face, just like they can show someone who is shortsighted didn’t see the car crash like they said they did.