I shouldn’t have to accept being in deepfake porn

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/deepfake-porn-ai-misinformation/674475/

by fortran77 • 3 years ago

27 71 3 years ago

h2odragon2• 3 years ago

If someone draws, or paints, art of you in a pose / situation you don't like; using traditional means of ink or pencil etc, are you as violated? Have you rights to redress from the artist?

Why should it be different if they use a different tool to create the picture?

EA-3167• 3 years ago

Would those "tools" such as ink and paper produce a similar, photorealistic result? Could reasonable people mistake them for the real thing?

sigstoat• 3 years ago

look up "photorealism".

h2odragon2• 3 years ago

Are you suggesting that all those photos of Abraham Lincoln nekkid from fark.com might not have been real?

Tronno2• 3 years ago

I have trouble imagining a reasonable person being interested in porn containing a minor government official, let alone being confused as to its authenticity. I can't even see reasonable people being interested in genuine celebrity sex tapes.

The audience for that seems limited to malicious weirdos who already have zero respect for the victim. Any influence it might have on their opinions seems irrelevant.

Of course, this has no bearing on the personal violation one feels when exposed to this sort of abuse. But for deepfake porn to somehow influence public perception is hard for me to grasp. Are there any examples of real reputational damage stemming from this?

everybodyknows• 3 years ago

Could reasonable people mistake them for the real thing?

That could be construed as satisfying the critical legal element of a defamation claim:

1) a false statement purporting to be fact.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

fortran772• 3 years ago

I agree this is a very complicated issue.

If someone were to draw a watercolor painting of a likeness of a President one doesn't like having sex with an equally despised congresswoman, most would agree that this is a classic "free speech issue" and is the very sort of protected speech that first ammendment clearly protects.

Ignoring tangential issues, like the copyright of the images used in the "deep fake", how is this situation any different?

murphyslab• 3 years ago

By virtue of appearing to be a photograph. The medium itself is a message (cf. Marshall McLuhan). An image which appears to be a photograph conveys a meaning to the viewer that "this depicts a real event", whereas if I draw a picture, even if it is of something plausible but which as never happened, there isn't a perception that the image is being presented as evidence of an event which has taken place. If we know that enough people will draw such an inference from a statement, it can and should be treated as potentially libelous.

NoZebra120vClip• 3 years ago

If someone were to draw a watercolor painting of a likeness of a President one doesn't like having sex with an equally despised congresswoman, most would agree that this is a classic "free speech issue" and is the very sort of protected speech that first ammendment clearly protects.

You would be wrong; there are many legal issues which can protect identifiable people from having their likeness used, especially if it is (1) without consent and (2) in a "private place" (or depicted in an intimate/private situation).

The person whose likeness is used would very much have recourse to sue, whether it's the painter of a watercolor or someone who generates a deepfake. The same principles apply.

Hard_Space• 3 years ago

I don't know - I think somebody needs to name the bubble of conceit that came into the world when photography was invented, since that created a philosophical issue, rather than a resolution issue. We went from an implicit understanding that newspaper engravings were 'representational' to a blind belief that photographs were records of the real world, notwithstanding that they were being manipulated and selectively used (first for amusement, later for propaganda, etc.) right from the start. Until we name it, the distinction between porn pencil drawings and photorealistic depictions doesn't have any supporting and exclusive definitions and terminology.

endisneigh• 3 years ago

I don’t know why people ask these kinds of questions. It’s like saying bomb ownership is ok because firecrackers can be bought. Clearly there’s a difference in scale.

In any case there shouldn’t be any difference I would imagine. There’s already precedent in United States, but circumstances matter.

Ferret7446• 3 years ago

Bomb ownership is okay AFAIK. Intent to commit murder/terrorism/etc is not. You'd have to convince the police/jury though.

arp242• 3 years ago

I don’t know why people ask these kinds of questions. It’s like saying bomb ownership is ok because firecrackers can be bought. Clearly there’s a difference in scale.

Yes, exactly, and by asking these sort of questions we can clarify what that scale is, exactly.

When exactly does a "firecracker" turn in to a "bomb"? What are any objective difference between the two? etc.

Here is some deepfake porn I just created of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton:

    \  Õ  / 
     \ | /  
       |    
       ----D <-----O
      / \   /|    \
     /   \ / |     \

You could say "well, that's not very good deepfake porn as it doesn't look anything like them, and it's just a bunch of stick figures", but what exactly does it mean for something to be a "deepfake"? Is at some point a painting realistic enough to be a "deepfake"? Is using a look-a-like okay? Where are the limits, exactly? What exactly makes a "real" deepfake worse than my stick figures?

tech_ken• 3 years ago

The difficulty required in producing this rate limits it, moreover artists can exercise professional discretion.

qwery8• 3 years ago

Your line of questioning makes no sense. You are introducing the medium as an issue -- why? If you have would have a legal leg to stand on, ask a lawyer. Do you have a moral right? Yes, of course, you've been violated.

Also, the "traditional wholesome art mediums" thing is a bit weird to use for an argument, to me anyway. The act is made much more disturbing and violent owing to the image being created by hand, with care and attention.

cvalka3• 3 years ago

There's no violence or "violation" here just someone being unhappy. Tough luck.

fortran772• 3 years ago

I shouldn’t have to accept being in deepfake porn

Related Stories