AOC's Deepfake AI Porn Bill Unanimously Passes the Senate
rollingstone.com
rollingstone.com
* 10 year statute of limitations
* $150,000 limits in damages plus court costs and attorney fees
The crime:
> The term ‘digital forgery’ means any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means, including by adapting, modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic visual depiction, to appear to a reasonable person to be indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual, regardless of whether the visual depiction indicates, through a label or some other form of information published with the visual depiction, that the visual depiction is not authentic ... [and]
> (I) the identifiable individual did not consent to such production, disclosure, solicitation, or possession;
> (II) the person knew or recklessly disregarded that the identifiable individual did not consent to such production, disclosure, solicitation, or possession; and
> (III) such production, disclosure, solicitation, or possession is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce or uses any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce
However, I do think it would allow, say, Trump to sue people who made or distributed an image of him appearing in a diaper (IIRC I think that has been a fairly common way to mock him as a crybaby).
The existing legal code which this bill modified is linked from the bill and available here: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6...
In this, it defines "intimate visual depiction". I see nothing here that would qualify in an image of Trump being in a diaper.
The definition of digital forgery references the existing legal code's definition of "Intimate visual depiction", which is defined here: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6...
So if you take an otherwise legal picture of someone, and add a filter which, eg, gives them a big forehead, you're fine. However, if you take a picture of and use it to create realistic porn of that person, that can sue.
Plus all the usual not understanding how the government, and especially the first amendment, works, which is a separate but also serious problem.
Roughly, my take is: It does feel true that this is hasty and responsive; there's an obvious "demand" for this kind of legislation.
That being said; I don't find the bill itself to be particularly problematic. The actual changes to the law are kind of minimal. "Digital forgery" as they use it, sure, could apply to Photoshops as well.
Big picture here, I have no qualms with this, even if it is more "show" than "substance."
It probably should. I don't think the technology matters, what is created in it does.
IMO the most subjective aspect is what constitutes likeness. I presume that's left to judge/jury's discretion? The range of face-recognition ability is pretty broad.
South Carolina is currently in a funny state where it's illegal to distribute non-consensual AI-generated porn of someone, but there aren't any laws against non-consensual revenge porn. Good news is that revenge porn laws have been adopted almost country-wide.
> regardless of whether the visual depiction indicates, through a label or some other form of information published with the visual depiction, that the visual depiction is not authentic
There is so much icky shit in text-to-image and I’m frankly amazed that the employees of stability AI have not gotten in trouble yet for the fact that they used CSAM during training of stable diffusion 1.5.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/20/24009418/generative-ai-i...
I don't think this changes much on the tool side, especially because most of those are already open source and can be hosted anywhere, but it goes after the people who order these images made, who are usually Americans and hence subject to US jurisdiction.
so if deepfake would be generated with distinctive indication that this is AI generated forgery then it would be ok? for example cyborg hand or palm and everything else like real person.
Otherwise, parody and criticism using AI would be limited.
> regardless of whether the visual depiction indicates, through a label or some other form of information published with the visual depiction, that the visual depiction is not authentic
But most people producing fake celeb porn are making images that, at first glance, look exactly like [celeb], and only on careful inspection do you see AI-telltales like wrong numbers of fingers. Easy to miss. The law is saying that these realistic images are not OK and the person depicted in them can sue, no matter how many disclaimers you add to the picture. It applies to well-made photoshops created by humans just as much as AI slop.
How can someone control if they receive a deepfake?
It's more about feeling they get from its passage, not any actual affects.
I get that weaponizing revenge porn someone sent you can be damaging.
But I don't get what this law is trying to do.
Is Hustler v. Falwell still valid?
> In the case, Hustler magazine ran a full-page parody ad against televangelist and political commentator Jerry Falwell Sr., depicting him as an incestuous drunk who had sex with his mother in an outhouse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell
As long as it's labeled "AI Generated" in the corner, does that make it OK?
What if a person wanted to generate porn of Eva Braun & Adolf Hitler -- who knows, just for the shock value... would that be banned? Even if it's a snuff film?
I can think of a bunch of things that aren't full on traditional porn... can I still make a video of Katy Perry eating a banana? Can I show Hugh Jackman making out with John C. McGinley (as Dr. Cox, of course)? Or what if I wanted a video of Elizabeth Hurley doing ASMR in a bikini, or in a burqa?
Falls back to, "What's porn, anyway?" is it still "I know it when I see it?" / "Anything that gives a judge an erection?" Or is it anything involving using AI to draw people? I make a drawing on Civitai... can someone come up and say, "That looks like my great aunt Trudy, take it down now!"
We've had Photoshop forever... I get that AI is maybe (emphasis on maybe) a bit more realistic than Photoshop. But to me, a law like this feels like it'll have unintended and far reaching connotations for how we use AI to create scenes from each of our own vivid and unique imaginations.
However, most laws have some vagueness about them, and, as intended, I believe it will fall to the courts to interpret the law.
All your examples are now indeed "illegal" to produce except the one involving only Hugh Jackman and John McGinley kissing as this law is ONLY about "protecting women" and "women's bodily autonomy" unfortunately AOC seems to think men don't have bodies apparently?
I don't want to ban you again but if this keeps up we're going to have to.
> DIGITAL FORGERY.—The term ‘digital forgery’ means any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means, including by adapting, modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic visual depiction, to appear to a reasonable person to be indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual, regardless of whether the visual depiction indicates, through a label or some other form of information published with the visual depiction, that the visual depiction is not authentic.
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:us:83d22542-02aa-46...
A law like this would have 100% clashed with the ruling of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988).
I don't know who else remembers the 80s... but Tipper Gore and Nancy Reagan were the bad guys. Censorship, no matter who it is supposed to help, will be twisted by those looking to silence their opponents.
Dee Snider's speech before Congress is as relevant now as it was then. "There is no authority who has the right, and necessary insight to make these judgements..."
It doesn't have to. The act exclusively amends 15 USC 6851, which already defines it in §6851(a)(5): http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6...
(5) Intimate visual depiction
The term "intimate visual depiction"-
(A) means a visual depiction, as that term is defined in section 2256(5) of title 18, that depicts-
(i) the uncovered genitals, pubic area, anus, or post-pubescent female nipple of an identifiable individual; or
(ii) the display or transfer of bodily sexual fluids-
(I) on to any part of the body of an identifiable individual;
(II) from the body of an identifiable individual; or
(III) an identifiable individual engaging in sexually explicit conduct and
(B) includes any visual depictions described in subparagraph (A) produced while the identifiable individual was in a public place only if the individual did not-
(i) voluntarily display the content depicted; or
(ii) consent to the sexual conduct depicted.
It would not. The parody advert at the heart of Hustler vs. Falwell did not include an "intimate visual depiction" of Falwell. It had a stock portrait of him, and lurid satirical text purporting to be his own words: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5d/Falwellhustle...
It modifies US Code section 6851: Civil action relating to disclosure of intimate images http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6...
The existing law allows a person with standing to bring a civil action against distributors of commercial pornography. This act amends that to not just include the commercial pornographer having actual pictures/video of the person, but also if they generate realistic pictures/video of the person.
Hitler and Braun are both dead, so they lack standing.
Falwell's case did not include an "intimate visual depiction" so he also couldn't bring a civil action under this section of the code. The requirement of "intimitate visual depiction" would also let you away with Katy Perry's fruit consumption, and provided there are no genitals, anuses, sexual fluids, etc. you could depict Jackman and McGinley... you could also be safe and render it as a cartoon, as the depiction has to be "indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual"
If this makes it all but illegal for AIs to generate images of people in the general case (e.g. outside a Hollywood studio using it for their own actors per contract), fine. So be it. Nothing of value would be lost.
“Oh no, I can’t add an uncanny valley picture to my blog” is a small price to pay for “I can’t get deepfakes of Taylor Swift anymore”.
I’m usually far on the other side of things like that, like Congress’s endless requests to make cell phones detect nudity in text messages. I guess it’s mainly that I don’t see value in AI generated pictures of humans. Having that capability hasn’t improved anything that I can see.
It appears to be "knowingly make the naughty picture and also know that it's directly tied to a person and that it's naughty"
Which links to the legal code which is modified here: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6...
The original legal code defines "intimate visual depiction".
I suspect the courts will find that “make a picture of Jane Smith eating dinner” should have been caught: someone asked for it by name. If you provided a sufficiently detailed description of Jane, like you would to a police artist, and the end result ends up looking like Jane although she was never mentioned, that would seem a lot trickier to pin on the AI.
I can’t tell a gun “shoot John Doe”. If I could, I’d likely be OK with a law holding the gun maker responsible for it. “You shouldn’t make guns that can target people by name” would be the analogous conversation to “you shouldn’t make machines that can crate fake images of humans by name”.
produce? why should it be illegal to create any forms on my own machine? where is the harm? or is this moral prudence at new level of invasiveness? is it now illegal to imagine someone naked?
distribute? yeah, this is a dick move
receive? so am i in trouble if someone else sends me this? it's now illegal to look up those swift fakes? why?
it seems more capable ai is being used as an excuse to limit our freedoms even more instead of the other way around. is there any system of law based on reason instead of votes?
But that's one use, and I can think of very few other legitimate uses, and many, many, many uses that I think are illegitimate.
A cynical view would be that they'll get around to legislation that covers other deepfakes once too many politicians get their reputations ruined by deepfakes of them doing things that they didn't do (or did but nobody has real video to prove it).
I could imagine a scenario where AI companies doing license their API to anyone with a credit card, but to someone willing to sign a contract with indemnification. Maybe then the daughter wouldn’t go directly to some AI website, but might hire a local or online human artist who had such a contract. Maybe she wouldn’t look for “artists who can do AI stuff” but “artists who can add my dad to my picture”. The art is what she’s paying for, not the specific technology used to create it. And the human artist would think “well, I obviously have the daughter’s permission. I can’t ask the dad for his, but that’s a normal thing for a dad to do, and it seems unlikely he’d mind” and accept the commission. Maybe it turns out there are dads who don’t want to be involved, like they disowned their crackhead kid or something. That risk would be part of the human judgment going into the project. Today the woman could ask an AI “can you add a picture of me dancing with my dad, King Charles?” A human artist would say “that ain’t your dad” and reject it.
Maybe all but requiring a human in the loop wouldn’t be a bad idea.
More general deepfakes are still a big issue in politics and business, as well as other areas I'm sure.
I get this would be a personal issue to her, after AI images of her made the rounds, but I would have hoped congress would address this more broadly, as it still impacts them all when it comes to election misinformation. Maybe they figure if they ban it they can't take advantage of it when it works in their favor?
EDIT: corporal to corporeal
Consider the following:
A) One of your co-workers touches you inappropriately without your consent.
B) One of your co-workers distributes pornographic images of you to your peers without your consent.
It's easy to say that "touching" and "distributing images" are not "the same thing", and also both scenarios are blatant sexual harassment.
The comment doesn't say the 2 are the same. They say that both should fall under your consent because they are either your actual body or a depiction of it...
Not sure how taht can be any clearer.
No i think its the opposite in this context. Its the autonomy to terminate the fetus and not carry it to term.
"when you are able to actively subjugate all women in society on a scale of millions, at once digitally, it’s a direct connection [with] taking their rights away"
"Current laws don’t apply to deepfakes, leaving women and girls who suffer from this image-based sexual abuse without a legal remedy"
"The legislation would amend the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) "
There is a mountain of case law that states that public figures have limited protections from criticism, mockery, etc. I am not sure humiliation will hold up any better.
They likely knew this as they add this at the end:
> If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such a provision or amendment to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions of and amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provision or amendment held to be unconstitutional to any other person or circumstance, shall not be affected thereby.
Also this definition is still quite broad?
> “(3) DIGITAL FORGERY.—The term ‘digital forgery’ means any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means, including by adapting, modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic visual depiction, to appear to a reasonable person to be indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual, regardless of whether the visual depiction indicates, through a label or some other form of information published with the visual depiction, that the visual depiction is not authentic.”;
So it doesn't even need to be pornographic, just "intimate".
Same playbook regardless of issue. People in power stirred up by busy bodies have been doing this repeatedly for 100 years. I do find it odd that originally these kind of things were pushed by religious fundamentalists. Many laws were passed based upon religious fundamentalist ideas that restrict behaviors and restrict speech. The entire liberal push used to be to strip down these restrictions because they fundamentally violated some of the core freedoms we're granted in a free country.
Now it seems the script has flipped. I see more liberals pushing for restrictions of Rights and freedoms than I do religious conservatives. No good deed goes unpunished and no emotionally feel good law will remain unabused by those in power.
So while it's easy to agree with this core idea that deep fake porn is bad, it's conveying a new right that has never been conveyed before. This idea that you have ownership of your image and how it is used. Depending on how you twist the words this could crush a satire completely. This can crush freedom of artistic expression. This is ripe for abuse because it's so emotionally charged is why you get a unanimous but vote. Politicians hoping to gain brownie points but understand the court will largely gut this bill. Unfortunately the people who have their rights violated, the actual enumerated and protected rights, not the emotional feel good things people think are rights, have no recourse other than spending large amounts of money or hoping the ACLU will take up this fight.
This doesn't appear to be true. This is a bipartisan bill, same as KOSA (which most liberals also do not want).
For most topics that upset liberals (e.g. racists on Twitter), they're not asking for laws, they're asking for private companies to ban them.
Meanwhile, religious conservatives are actually banning books from libraries, and getting teachers fired.
Who's fear-mongering now?
If you read the bill you'll see that to be liable 1) it must depict an intimate scene, 2) it must be done knowingly, 3) it must be indistinguishable from a real person and 4) it must be done without their consent.
That's a pretty reasonable standard IMO. This certainly doesn't include political speech or satire, unless your satire must include photorealistic porn.
Just like if I made a movie using a famous actor using AI.