Oregon House passes bill to criminalize sharing AI-generated fake nude photos

Nude beaches are consensual.

Romulans aren’t real and are therefore Afforded no rights.

Actors who play Romulans are real and are covered under the law.

This is pretty explicitly focused on AI-generated revenge porn and using AI-generated content to fake being a real person without that person’s consent.

> Oregon is a step closer to becoming the 32nd state to ban the use of AI or other digital manipulation to create and spread nude or sexually explicit photos without consent

Found in the second paragraph. Could’ve at least put the effort to try to skim the article

This, as written -- the legislature's page which includes the text of the law and analyses done by legislative staff for legislators is linked in the article -- would cover that as well. While AI deepfakes are the main motivating issue prompting the revision of the states existing revenge porn law, the revision is not limited to them. It changes the existing law which covers nonconsensual distribution of intimate imagery (with speciied intent and knowledge) to expand the definition of intimate images from "a photograph, film, videotape, recording, digital picture and other visual reproduction" in which either the subject's "intimate parts are visible" or the subject is "engaging in sexual conduct" to also include "A digitally created, manipulated or altered depiction that is reasonably realistic."

Now, if someone does convicing fakery by analog means without digital tools, even if the appearance is realistic, it looks like it might still fall through the cracks, but that's probably not realitic a significant problem, and were it to become one its an easy fix.

Really? I am not a lawyer, but from what I recall this would fall squarely under defamatory speech.

It should be illegal as long as the AI-generated images are tied to the victim. If it's presented as fake/fictional, it's probably fine. If it's presented as photos of person X, even if they are not real photos, it's likely illegal.

This is not a free speech issue. There are limitations to free speech. While the framers would have never conceived of this kind of issue, this definitely falls within the okay to make illegal in my books.

I think there is a close analogy to criminal libel here, which has generally been found to be Constitutional in cases of intentional misrepresentation. It would be difficult to argue that this particular case is anything but intentional misrepresentation of the victim.

Non-consensual sexualization is not protected speech.

Courts have generally found that non-consensual intimate imagery isn't fully protected speech when it causes identifiable harm, similar to defamation or true threats - several similar state laws have already survived initial constitutional challenges.

It's a fairly common element of revenge porn laws in the states, and I think it is likely to survive review because it does not criminalize the content as content, but the dissemination of it with the intent and effect of causing harm. The Oregon law being amended to add coverage of digital fakes criminalizes nonconsensual dissemination of images covered where both the intent exists that the subject of the images be "harassed, humiliated or injures" and a reasonable person would, in fact, be "harassed, humiliated or injured" by the dissemination of the images.

And fake images are probably less protected than real images here, where, again, the prohibition is not on the content, but its use as a tool to cause intentional harm.