News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
The text of the bill specifies
So it's not trying to chase specific implementations but using a "reasonable person" test (which I would argue is a good thing)
So if I make AI porn of a celebrity but give her a face tattoo saying AI generated then its legal?
Doubt it, a reasonable person will generally be able to tell if you're obviously taking the piss with the law. Feel free to try it and let us know how you get on though.
But that is not what the bill says, the reasonable person is not evaluating my intent, it's evaluating if the video is "indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual" which in this case it would be very distinguishable since the individual does not have said face tattoo.
How does your legal team compare to Scarlett Johansen's? There's your answer where the line is.
We're not talking about Scarlets team here, what about Jane Doe?
When does parody/fair use come into play? If it's a caricature of the person is that okay?
Defamation is not parody. Fake porn of someone is absolutely defamation.
I can't legally make a "parody" of you but you're a pedophile.
Edit: Since there seems to be some confusion, I am not calling them a pedophile, I'm saying I can't make some sort of fake of them as a pedophile and call it a parody.
I asked a question and you called me a pedophile. Bit of an over reaction?
I'm literally doing the opposite of calling you a pedophile. I'm saying it would be illegal to call you a pedophile and claim it's a parody. That's not an excuse for defamation.
And I said that because I am assuming you are not a pedophile.
I'm not sure why you didn't get that.
A bit of unfortunate wording there. :) I had to go back and reread it slowly in order to understand what you meant.
Ironically, the face tattoo might convince some people it's real, since AI has a well known problem with writing coherent text.
I don't think that's what it means.
A depiction which is authentic might refer to provenance.
If someone authorises me to make a pornographic depiction of them, surely that's not illegal. It's authentic.
So it's not a question of whether the depiction appears to be AI generated, it's really about whether a reasonable person would conclude that the image is a depiction of a specific person.
That means tattoos, extra limbs, third books, et cetera won't side step this law.
So the old libel trick where you give the character a small dick should work?
There are billions of people. Find the right one, and a "reasonable person" could not tell the difference.
Image a law that said you cannot name your baby a name if someone else's name starts with the same letter. After 26 names, all future names would be illegal. The law essentially would make naming babies illegal.
The "alphabet" in this case is the distict visual depiction of all people. As long as the visual innumeration of "reasonable people" is small enough, it essentially makes any generation illegal. Conversely, if "reasonable people" granulated fine enough, it makes avoiding prosecution trivial by adding minor conflicting details.
You should maybe do a little more reading on the word "reasonable."
"The right one" according to whom? There are two sides to a court case. The opposition can find all kinds of ways to show that person is not reasonable since they can't recognize a very good simulation of someone's face, just like they can show someone who is shortsighted didn't see the car crash like they said they did.