Comment on Grok’s ‘spicy’ video setting instantly made me Taylor Swift nude deepfakes
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 3 days agoSwift could easily get a lawsuit set up against them and most likely win
How would that work? If someone drew a photorealistic painting of pretty much the same, under what legal claim could Swift “most likely win”?
bubblewrap@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
Many jurisdictions have started banning nonconsensual intimate imagery, including the US (in several states as well as federally under the TAKE IT DOWN Act).
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 3 days ago
That seems recently signed into law (ie, untested in courts) & patently unconstitutional. Would that law prohibit obscene depictions of Trump?
frongt@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
Maybe. For photographs, it’s definitely not unconstitutional to make it illegal, because people have a right to privacy (4th amendment sort of, and 10th because they’re state laws).
For Trump, and for non-photographic media, it’s a little different. For one, he’s a very public figure. Another, you could argue it’s artistic, satirical, or critical of him.
Now if you were doing it maliciously, with intent to harass him personally, then yeah that would probably be considered not protected and carry civil or criminal liability.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 3 days ago
As is Swift.
Is that the standard? Wouldn’t an act of harassment (as legally defined) rather than only intent of it be a required element?
The argument seems weak for a fake image of a public figure.
bubblewrap@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
Well, the constitutionality will need to be tested, sure, but the US first amendment is not absolute, even if it is sweeping relative to other countries.
Also, the US is not the only jurisdiction in the world. Plenty of other countries have put similar laws on the books over the last 2-3 years.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 3 days ago
It’s pretty clear: strict scrutiny.
Would the jurisdiction for a case between a US citizen & US company not be the US?