THE SENATE UNANIMOUSLY passed a bipartisan bill to provide recourse to victims of porn deepfakes — or sexually-explicit, non-consensual images created with artificial intelligence.

The legislation, called the Disrupt Explicit Forged Images and Non-Consensual Edits (DEFIANCE) Act — passed in Congress’ upper chamber on Tuesday.  The legislation has been led by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), as well as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in the House.

The legislation would amend the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to allow people to sue those who produce, distribute, or receive the deepfake pornography, if they “knew or recklessly disregarded” the fact that the victim did not consent to those images.

    • gnutrino@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          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.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              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.

              • ticho@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                A bit of unfortunate wording there. :) I had to go back and reread it slowly in order to understand what you meant.

    • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.