💾 Archived View for bbs.geminispace.org › s › NSFW › 13401 captured on 2024-08-18 at 19:24:52. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2024-06-16)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
So, in the time of AI generated images, there is of course AI generated porn. I'm wondering, what are the legal implications of someone generating a fairly realistic model of someone based solely off their public image postings on social media and then circulating it? let's take this a step further and move it to VR. the no brain answer is sexual harassment, but my question is, is there any kind of legal framework in place (anywhere) to deal with such issues? I'm sure this has already happened but I'm just not aware of it. I think with AI image popularity taking off, it'll be much more frequent.
(even if they don't circulate it, it's creepy to think someone might do this.)
This Taylor Swift article made me take this post out of draft after a few weeks of sitting there.
Jan 28 · 7 months ago · 👍 Ruby_Witch
😺 taichara · 2024-01-28 at 05:56:
George Carlin's family is, iirc, initiating legal proceedings against a group that made an AI replica of his voice -- and put together an entire show that way, or something to that effect -- so one legal aspect is on the way.
🐐 drh3xx · 2024-01-28 at 08:54:
If someone imagined a celeb naked or engaging in a sex act with them would it be a problem? If they were an artist and made a sketch for "personal use" is that a problem? As long as the content is otherwise legal, source images were public and nothing is circulated I fail to see the issue. We all have fantasies and if you were to choose to use AI to augment your imagination *shrugs*. There's no real harm or embarrasmment until its: a) distributed b) following legislation its dragged into court in front of the person, a jury and various others. If someone became obsessed, behaved inappropriately (stalking etc...) or tried to make a profit there is likely legislation already in place for that.
🍄 Ruby_Witch [mod] · 2024-01-28 at 20:24:
@drh3xx The thing is, posting the images on Twitter counts as them being distributed. I think that if you generate images like this for your own use and keep them only on your hard drive where nobody else knows about them there's no legal issue. However, the celebrity could take issue with the software that you used to make it though and go after the developer, even if it's open source.
You don't always have to be making money for this kind of thing to be a problem, either. Hulk Hogan successfully sued Gawker out of existence not because they were making money off of his sex tape, but because their distribution of the tape damaged his "brand". That's an argument that could be used here too.
🐐 drh3xx · 2024-01-29 at 09:45:
@Ruby_Witch I completely agree that twitter counted as distribution. My point was simply that existing laws likely cover most cases outside of personal use and that personal use in my opinion has no sensible basis to create legislation. As you say Hogan managed to take action due to brand/reputational damage.