The law creates a new kind of intellectual property, so one would expect the enforcement problems to be similar to copyright. However, there are some big differences.
One is that the minimum damages are 150k USD + attorney’s fees/costs. That’s going to unleash quite some entrepreneurial zeal.
To be on the hook, “possession with intent to distribute” is enough if one “recklessly disregards” that a depicted individual did not consent. EG if you come across nudes of some celebrities on your lemmy instance, you better delete them immediately. Assuming that the celebrity consented to the images being shared sounds like “reckless disregard” to me. If it’s just someone, then it’s no problem.
This definitely will make some people quite a lot of money.
RainfallSonata@lemmy.world 2 months ago
“The legislation amends the Violence Against Women Act so that people can sue those who produce, distribute, or receive the deepfake pornography, if they “knew or recklessly disregarded” that the victim did not consent to those images.”–The article.
dsemy@lemm.ee 2 months ago
I read the article… amending a law doesn’t make the problem go away.
Maybe if more attention was given to the politicians talking about this half a decade ago (instead of focusing on AOC, which honestly realized this issue way too late), something more meaningful could have been done.
RainfallSonata@lemmy.world 2 months ago
That wasn’t the point of the article though. It isn’t either/or.
umbrella@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
kind of, this is like doing a blame game for climate change, 30 years from now.
starman@programming.dev 2 months ago
So can I send someone deepfake porn and then sue them?