Very disappointed but very unsurprised to see that the initial HN reaction is "this shouldn't be illegal". Where is your respect for others?
[deleted]
Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia
31–40 of 98 posts
Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes; this is basic enough to be in the syllabus for the case: Held: In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without sho…
Exactly. So a deepfake of a clean-cut star, say Taylor Swift, in an over-the-top hardcore porn clip would not reasonably be considered real and so could be a legitimate parody. I forgot to mention perhaps the greatest political porn title: "Who's Nailin Palin?" ... the perfect recent embodiment of the Falwell holding.
That's not at all the case, no. If you use extraordinary new computing facilities to create a convincing facsimile of a public person having sex with someone else on camera, you're very unlikely to skate on the "reasonable person" standard. I remain interested in how familiar you are with deepfake technology, because it is nothing at all like the Falwell parody in Hustler or the porn parody film you just cited.
Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia
#33> The new law amends existing law in the Commonwealth that defines distribution of nudes or sexual imagery without the subject's consent —often called revenge porn —as a Class 1 misdemeanor. The new bill updated the law by adding a category of "falsely created videographic or still image" to the text.
This is a strange law:
> Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever that depicts another person who is totally nude, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. For purposes of this subsection, "another person" includes a person whose image was used in creating, adapting, or modifying a videographic or still image with the intent to depict an actual person and who is recognizable as an actual person by the person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/18.2-386.2
A kid makes a pencil drawing of the school principal in a compromising situation and posts it to Instagram.
Legal?
A very talented artist creates a realistic watercolor of the President in a compromising situation with Kim Jong-un and posts to Instagram.
Legal?
A kid uses software he downloaded to generate a realistic depiction of the school principal in a compromising situation and posts it to Instagram.
Legal?
Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia
#34Shouldn't this already be covered by defamation and/or laws related to truth in marketing?
> laws related to truth in marketing
I'm a regular joe consumer, and as far as I can tell, there are either no such laws, or they are never enforced.
Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. So a deepfake of a clean-cut star, say Taylor Swift, in an over-the-top hardcore porn clip would not reasonably be considered real and so could be a legitimate parody. I forgot to mention perhaps the greatest political porn title: "Who's Nailin Palin?" ... the perfect recent embodiment of the Falwell holding.
That's not at all the case, no. If you use extraordinary new computing facilities to create a convincing facsimile of a public person having sex with someone else on camera, you're very unlikely to skate on the "reasonable person" standard. I remain interested in how familiar you are with deepfake technology, because it is nothing at all like the Falwell parody in Hustler or the porn parody film you just cited.
I am well aware of what can be done having once worked in film/TV production. But the quality of the fake is irrelevant. Falwell involved an absolutely perfect fake. It was a text interview. There was nothing in the interview, beyond the nature of the content, that suggested it wasn't real. They even used his real face in the portrait. Surely more than a few people fell for the gag. The parallels to a modern deepfake porn parody are clear.
https://frontpageconfidential.com/larry-flynt-supreme-court-...
Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia
#36> The new law amends existing law in the Commonwealth that defines distribution of nudes or sexual imagery without the subject's consent —often called revenge porn —as a Class 1 misdemeanor. The new bill updated the law by adding a category of "falsely created videographic or still image" to the text. This is a strange law: > Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates o…
> A very talented artist creates a realistic watercolor of the President in a compromising situation with Kim Jong-un and posts to Instagram.
Probably legal. It is satire meant to be political commentary. Not distributed with the intent to "coerce, harass, or intimidate"
As for the other ones idk, probably illegal. The last one almost certainly is, and honestly it probably should be.
Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes; this is basic enough to be in the syllabus for the case: Held: In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without sho…
Exactly. So a deepfake of a clean-cut star, say Taylor Swift, in an over-the-top hardcore porn clip would not reasonably be considered real and so could be a legitimate parody. I forgot to mention perhaps the greatest political porn title: "Who's Nailin Palin?" ... the perfect recent embodiment of the Falwell holding.
So a deepfake of a clean-cut star, say Taylor Swift, in an over-the-top hardcore porn clip would not reasonably be considered real and so could be a legitimate parody.
So it could be argued. But color me skeptical as to whether such an argument would convince any judge. For one, sex tapes of so called clean cut stars have emerged before. For another, most reasonable people would agree that there is a significant difference in how we perceive the realness of text and photorealistic images. People understand that text is inherently a medium in which reality is filtered through the interpretation of the writer. In other words, we’re comfortable with the idea that text is an unreliable medium. Photorealistic images are different in that regard. If people can’t tell that a video is fake by looking, it’s reasonable to expect that they will assume it’s real.
Who's Nailin Palin?
That’s ridiculous. Nobody who knew Sarah Pailin would mistake an actress for her.
Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia
#38Very disappointed but very unsurprised to see that the initial HN reaction is "this shouldn't be illegal". Where is your respect for others?
"respect" isn't generally something that is, or should be, enforced by laws.
Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia
#39> The new law amends existing law in the Commonwealth that defines distribution of nudes or sexual imagery without the subject's consent —often called revenge porn —as a Class 1 misdemeanor. The new bill updated the law by adding a category of "falsely created videographic or still image" to the text. This is a strange law: > Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates o…
> A very talented artist creates a realistic watercolor of the President in a compromising situation with Kim Jong-un and posts to Instagram. Probably legal. It is satire meant to be political commentary. Not distributed with the intent to "coerce, harass, or intimidate" As for the other ones idk, probably illegal. The last one almost certainly is, and honestly it probably should be.
Why? I thought we had freedom of speech in the US. If I want to draw a picture of you doing something nasty and post it to my own website why should the state stop me?
Re: Deepfake revenge porn distribution now a crime in Virginia
#40> The new law amends existing law in the Commonwealth that defines distribution of nudes or sexual imagery without the subject's consent —often called revenge porn —as a Class 1 misdemeanor. The new bill updated the law by adding a category of "falsely created videographic or still image" to the text. This is a strange law: > Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates o…
> A kid
I think we can probably agree kids would be wise to avoid doing the specific things you mentioned.
But importantly, when a kid breaks a law there is typically a separate system for juveniles...