"Nonconsensual AI porn" is a weasel term because it implies that it should be necessary to get someone's consent to create fake porn using their faces.
Controlling likenesses in AI was the whole point of the SAG strike.
What if they used Photoshop instead of drawing from a reference?
The fact that a small problem exists does not negate the existence of a larger problem.
Yeah, widely publishing or making money off of someone's likeness is a whole different can of worms. I was thinking for strictly personal use.
Right now CivitAI is basically Stable Diffusion social media. It doesn't seem profitable at all, even of they are selling user data or getting subs or whatever.
But if they start charging for downloads or whatever, they may cross a line into making money off likeness, and not just "hosting user content" like Facebook and Twitter and any oldschool image hosting service gets to say they do.
Yes, commercial use of likeness is also an issue, and it may or may not be violated simply by distribution of something use the likeness on a commercial website like civitai.
Revenge porn laws are generally criminal, and as such unaffected by Section 230.
I think they had 5 or 6 demands.
No, it wasn't.
It was one important issue in the strike, but there were others (streaming residuals were a big issue, for instance.)
I'm not entitled to categorically own/forbid using a look. That's nonsense and leads to self-inflicted quandaries: How do I know a video of unknown provenance contains me, not a dead ringer that gave consent? How different must a depiction be to not require my consent? 9 pixels? 30%, whatever that means? At least an eye color change?
It's impossible to consistently enforce, presumptive, and effectively thought-policing a concept. In short: it's absurd.
> It's impossible to consistently enforce, presumptive, and effectively thought-policing a concept. In short: it's absurd.
I mean, come on. It’s fine to disapprove of the law, but this isn’t some uniquely difficult thing that the legal system couldn’t possibly handle. It’s certainly nowhere near the level of complexity and ambiguity of, for instance, criminal fraud law, where things like the intent of the accused and the “reasonable person” are routinely crucial elements.
But it is neither novel nor unique to AI.
What do?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#United_Stat...
So, the USA-specific answer is depends on the specific US state(s) whose law relevant to the action in controversy.
There are countries with national rights in this area, but the USA is (and your source highlights this) not one of them.
> What if I look identical to Taylor Swift? Do I lose my right to free expression?
Taylor Swift's corporate legal team would already do a pretty fine job of excising that right from you. No additional legislation needed.
Yes.
> What if I look identical to Taylor Swift?
Yes, still.
Now, if you are trading commercially on the appearance similarity in a way which presents, either explicitly or implicitly on your images as Swift’s, then you open yourself up to right of publicity claims in some jurisdictions, and the same may be true of revenge porn laws in some jurisdiction, even without the context being commercial.
Who gets to decide what should or should not be necessary? Do you think your opinion about this is the majority view by people?