To me, these kinds of events support the idea that no AI-specific law is needed. AI is already illegal to use insofar as it's used to commit a crime, and it's already subject to tort law.
Having something ratified as a law makes any lawsuit a slam dunk and discourages abuse even by wealthy corporations.
No, it doesn't, otherwise there would be no lawsuits proceding to trial without settlement ubder established laws.
Having law that (whether on its face or through case law) clearly applies to the situation that you claim occurred obviously helps, but it doesn't make any suit an automatic slam dunk.
We might find out that this case dies in the first phases of proceedings because the law is not on Johansson's side.
I have a feeling we will definitely need some new legislation in the next 10 years for regulating AI.
Satire is the textbook example of fair use.
In terms of deepfakes or crypto scams, in the end what we need it is more literacy on the matter, which won't prevent the ability for AI to do "things" but will let us acknowledge that's where we're at. Specific laws to get everyone on the same page on this is absolutely necessary.
I don't follow your argument. That same problem applies to legislators and regulators.
Also, I don't see any legal novelty. Same shit, different tech.
And I meant novelty for AI in general. This specific case does seem like same shit different tech.