Senate passes the DEFIANCE Act

[Mr. X]

https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/ ... nate-floor

I have not full read this but apparently all those picks of celebs that are deep faked are illegal or actionable.

[Mr. X]

https://www.durbin.senate.gov/imo/media ... 051324.pdf

The bipartisan Disrupt Explicit Forged Images and Non-Consensual Edits Act of 2024 or the
DEFIANCE Act of 2024 would hold accountable those who are responsible for the proliferation
of nonconsensual, sexually-explicit “deepfake” images and videos.
Deepfakes are videos or images created through artificial intelligence that look completely
realistic. They may superimpose an individual’s likeness onto real video footage depicting
someone else, or they may consist of entirely original content where someone is represented
doing or saying something they did not do or say. In either case, these deepfakes are hoaxes.
The volume of deepfake content available online is increasing exponentially as the technology
used to create it has become more accessible to the public. A 2019 study found that 96 percent
of deepfake videos were nonconsensual pornography.
Sexually-explicit deepfake content is often used to exploit and harass women—particularly
public figures, politicians, and celebrities. For example, in January 2024, fake, sexually-explicit
images of Taylor Swift that were generated by artificial intelligence swept across social media
platforms. Although the imagery may be fake, the harm to the victims is very real. Victims have
lost their jobs, and may suffer ongoing depression or anxiety.
The laws have not kept up with the spread of this abusive content. To stop the proliferation of
nonconsensual, sexually-explicit deepfakes, the DEFIANCE Act of 2024 creates a federal civil
remedy for victims who are identifiable in a “digital forgery,” which is defined as a visual
depiction created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any
other computer-generated or technological means to falsely appear to be authentic.
The civil remedy applies to digital forgeries that depict the victim in the nude, or engaged in
sexually-explicit conduct or sexual scenarios. The remedy is enforceable against individuals
who produced or possessed the forgery with intent to distribute it; or who produced, distributed,
or solicited the forgery, if the individual knew or recklessly disregarded that the victim did not
consent to the conduct.
This bill creates a statute of limitations of 10 years; tolls the running of the statute of limitations
until the plaintiff learns about the nonconsensual deepfake intimate image or they turn 18,
whichever occurs later; and elaborates on the privacy protections available to plaintiffs during
the course of any litigation, particularly with respect to the handling of discovery of the content
at issue. These provisions would apply both to existing law relating to nonconsensual disclosure
of intimate images and the new cause of action for nonconsensual deepfake intimate images.
Organizations that have endorsed the DEFIANCE Act include the Rape, Abuse, and Incest
National Network (RAINN), National Center on Sexual Exploitation, Sexual Violence
Prevention Association, National Network to End Domestic Violence, Street Grace, National
Alliance to End Sexual Violence, PACT, and Rights4Girls.

[BlackOut]

This is interesting to learn about, personally I'm not sure how it will be applied, but they might very well target the sites that are distributing and hosting such material. At least on my own end, while I have recently started to create some AI art, what I create I share freely and without any intention of selling for a profit. Regardless, thanks for sharing the information, something to keep a keen eye on for sure.

[Mr. X]

This is interesting to learn about, personally I'm not sure how it will be applied, but they might very well target the sites that are distributing and hosting such material. At least on my own end, while I have recently started to create some AI art, what I create I share freely and without any intention of selling for a profit. Regardless, thanks for sharing the information, something to keep a keen eye on for sure.

Yeah I have no idea how this will be enforced other than selectively. Basically if Taylor Swift complains the gov could act on the person distributing this material. I guess be prepared that places like Pixiv and DA will start banning such pics out of self defense.

[bbsucks]

I'm actually not entirely opposed to this, on a moral level. Celeb fakes have always kind of made me a little uncomfortable. I love me some super raunchy heroine porn stuff, but don't think it's unreasonable for people to specifically opt into or out of participating in it. Nobody should have to appear in kinky pornography on the internet if they don't want to. Meanwhile, we always have porn actresses that willingly agree to pretend to play these roles OR we have generic AI people.

In a recent example, I think someone posted AI images of Melanie Dunn nude in peril situations. In her case, we specifically know that she wasn't ever nude in any bluestone videos because that exceeded a personal boundary that she had. For us to reject that boundary and have her appear in that stuff anyway, even though it's not technically her body, seems like a little bit like an overstep.

Is there a part of me that wants to see these people naked doing superheroine-y things? Absolutely. But I also think anyone should have the right to not let me see them naked if they don't want me to see them naked.

[bbsucks]

This is all strictly my opinion and morals, but I should also say for someone like a comic publisher to say "we don't consent to our fictional Supergirl character appearing in erotic situations..." That I don't give a shit about. Supergirl isn't a real person with feelings and personal boundaries. Running a generic Supergirl not based on a real person through the ringer... I don't think that oversteps anything.

Sure as the IP owners and copyright holders they should technically be allowed to dictate how the character should and shouldn't be used, but boohoo business.

[Mr. X]

Sure it can have consequences like that fake picture of Trump with Epstein sitting on a couch with a young girl. Its AI generated (Epstein has no legs). They're gonna have to put some kind of encryption on pics taken by camera at some point.

[jlocke]

Well, our community (myself included) loves fictional depictions of rape, violence against women, non-consensual bondage, and humiliation. But we're going to draw the line at fictional depictions of celebrities and politicians. Seems a little...odd.

So the government won't do shit about this. This isn't a criminal law, it's a civil remedy. It allows individuals to seek financial compensation in a civil trial. So, the celebrity can sue, thereby bringing more attention to the fact that there are nude fakes. But there aren't any criminal consequences.

Also, the images have to be “digital forgeries". They have to be created using computer software and have to falsely appear to be authentic. They also have to be nude or engaged in sex acts. So you can paint a completely realistic painting of Trump ass fucking AOC, you just can't use a computer.

Basically if your deep fakes become popular enough that they go viral and a celebrity has to prove they aren't real, you'll get sued. Otherwise, this is a lot of moralistic bullshit.

So the individual depicted here:

Kamala12.jpeg (179.35 KiB) Viewed 3007 times

Would have no legal remedy as the computer generated image isn't nude or depicting a sex act.

But they may have a remedy for this image:

kamala07.jpeg (201.72 KiB) Viewed 3007 times

Because her nipples are showing. But is it falsely appearing to be authentic? It's obviously fake. It's not attempting to fool anyone unless we all think the VP is a cosplayer or even better, likes to roleplay as a superheroine when she fucks her husband.

Add to that first amendment challenges, protected parody precedents, having to prove the images/movies are falsely appearing to be authentic, the sheer volume of deep fakes created, the need to prove when the fake was created since you can't be held liable for a law that was written after you committed the act (ex post facto)...I would say the civil law is problematic at best and most likely unenforceable unless the defendant is rich, and the deepfake was viral.

[Lurkndog]

On the flip side, one of things that DeviantArt has demonstrated to me is that you can have a photorealistic Wonder Woman that registers 100% as Wonder Woman, and doesn't look like Lynda Carter.

[attachment=0]world_goth_day_with_wonder_woman_4_by_nega1_dhg848h.jpg

[bbsucks]

"Well, our community (myself included) loves fictional depictions of rape, violence against women, non-consensual bondage, and humiliation. But we're going to draw the line at fictional depictions of celebrities and politicians. Seems a little...odd."

See... I think I just very strongly disagree with this point of view that you have. You're saying that drawing the line with depictions of celebrities and politicians is kind of silly. I don't think that's the case. We have a kink where we enjoy fantasies that are taboo and "naughty" (if you will), but that doesn't mean we don't have any moral boundaries. More obviously we're not actual rapists and abusers (at least I hope not). We obviously do have boundaries that start somewhere, despite the stuff we're into.

--The following is all my opinion and I don't necessarily claim to be "right" about any of this. This is just how I see it. ---

First of all, my line isn't specifically drawn at celebrities and politicians. I think the line is drawn at PEOPLE who don't consent to appearing in pornographic material, which happens to include celebrities and politicians. But I don't think it applies to celebrities or politicians any more or less than regular people.

And yes, we do enjoy fictional depictions of rape, violence against woman, non-consensual bondage, and humiliation. But for me, all of this exists very securely in the realm of fantasy and fiction. And I think it's pretty important that it's not real people OR when it is real people (IE - an actual pornstar playing a fictional role), they are participating in the fantasy willingly (as many kinky couples do in their own homes).

For example, I think a story (in whatever format) about defeating and raping a powerless Supergirl is fun and kinky. Supergirl isn't a real person and doesn't have anything to feel if they stumble upon that story. Meanwhile, a story about beating up and raping Mary Smith from apartment 203 (completely made up person) is very different. Mary Smith may feel violated, threatened, traumatized, and scared if she encounters that story. Or embarrassed to find nude pictures on the internet (in whatever format) if she doesn't want to show the world her naked body. I can even kind of relate to this in that I wouldn't personally like any depiction of my naked body on the internet. I would find that terribly embarrassing. And I'm a man. These things are evening creepier and deeper for women who have lots of other creepy things to deal with online and in real life.

This is just me, but my line for this doesn't just apply to AI fakes. For me it's all art forms, from written word to paintings to realistic AI renditions. Personally, I believe everyone should have the right to choose to participate in pornographic material or not. (Again, I'm talking about actual people and not characters).

I think it's very possible to have kinky fantasies without actually hurting anyone. And pulling non-consenting individuals into the world of pornography is a thing that I believe has the ability to hurt people. Thus it is my line. Whether it's a law or not.

So regardless of what this law applies to or what gaps there are in it or how realistic it is for them to enforce it, I think it's well meaning and good.

Again, y'all can have whatever moral lines you all want. I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do (although I do believe that nobody here should hurt anyone). But I think it's a decent thing to protect people against. Even if you don't like that person.