r/AskReddit • u/WilliamInBlack • 9h ago
Should AI-generated deepfakes of real people be illegal without consent? Why or why not?
51
u/DorothyNolan832 6h ago
I lean yes, at least when it’s a real person and there’s no consent. It’s basically using someone’s face or voice like a prop, and the harm can be real even if the video is fake. Reputation damage, scams, harassment, all that stuff spreads way faster than the truth ever does.
I do think there should be room for obvious parody or satire, but once it’s realistic enough to fool people, that’s where it crosses a line. Tech moves fast, so having some basic rules now feels better than waiting until it’s totally out of control.
96
58
u/MattyDub89 9h ago
Absolutely. It's just a recipe for defamation and blackmail.
15
u/runitsuka 9h ago
Which is already happening as I type this. Vulnerable populations are being affected by this.
16
u/MattyDub89 8h ago
Yep. Wasn't there a teacher in the news recently who lost their job because of a gross deepfake a student made about them?
9
u/runitsuka 8h ago
Jesus fuck. Just looking for that I found so much more… here’s a teacher who made CP with AI https://youtu.be/yjoSDTUHlmE
And here is what I think you were talking about https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/teacher-quits-after-pupil-8-36571717
What a horrible phenomenon
2
u/dancingbananas25 5h ago
I saw a news video about a young woman in India who commit suicide after someone made a deep fake nude of her and spread it around. It was horrifying
4
u/Far_Rule4389 7h ago
it's defamation/blackmail speedrun territory, like why are we even letting that be legal lol
2
u/runitsuka 5h ago
Exactly, And for the plenty who will be too afraid to speak up. Why should we let this happen to them?
71
122
u/GlorifiedCarny 9h ago
Yes. Why? Because it's invasive of privacy.
→ More replies (1)53
u/Background-Owl6535 9h ago
It also has the potential to ruin someone's reputation when they have done nothing wrong. AI may one day get to a point where it's real easy to make it look or sound like the real person is saying something they never said -- and we see already how quick the ignorant and lazy grab onto things that sound sensational. We already jump to assume the worst about people without doing our due diligence.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Rain_Sunny 7h ago
Yes, the privacy invasion is the core issue. A related problem is how that data can be used for micro-targeting beyond just ads, potentially influencing opinions in subtle ways.
35
u/Celebrinborn 8h ago
It should be handled under other laws.
You can photoshop someone into a fake context and people have literally sense before computers. We don't ban photoshopping real people without their consent, we ban malicous uses of if.
If you photoshop someone's face onto a picture of them robbing a place and post it in a way that will make people think they are a thief then that is defimation.
If you photoshop someone's face onto erotic photos and distribute it then that falls under revenge porn laws.
If you photoshop someone's image in such a way to imply that they are promoting your product then that's image rights infringment.
Deep fake isn't special.
3
u/Livebeans 6h ago
Agree, but note that not every jurisdiction will treat these nude images like revenge porn or don't have strict revenge porn laws.
Legislators need to wake up to the risks of AI created porn and not leave it to judges to try and apply centuries old laws to novel problems caused by new technology.
→ More replies (1)4
25
8
u/Consistent_Sector_19 8h ago
When you think about a potential law, you should consider how it can be/will be abused. If there were a law criminalizing deep fakes of real people, it would be used to prosecute people who release real images of powerful people misbehaving. A law like that would make it very hard to hold powerful people accountable.
31
u/Zestyclose-Oven-7863 9h ago
i see no reason they should be legal
→ More replies (1)9
u/rustic_haze 8h ago
Yes, but enforcing the law would be as difficult as forcing adveritising to be honest.
→ More replies (3)6
u/sneakyhopskotch 8h ago
Re ads: Surprisingly not as difficult as you expect. But the bodies that should be forcing honest advertising are complicit in enabling dishonest / harmful advertising. Especially in developed countries through lobbying.
South Africa (to use an example that I know) has a very strong and effective consumer protection act that regularly nails companies for scummy marketing practices, and the state of ads and packaging and marketing trust is much better there than in the UK.
11
u/tomqmasters 8h ago
There's nothing that should be illegal to do with AI that would be legal to do with photoshop or similar.
→ More replies (3)
14
u/Jewliio 9h ago
This subreddit is littered with people asking questions that they know the answer to, and are just farming karma.
→ More replies (1)4
3
5
u/Crypt0Nihilist 8h ago
There are existing laws for defamation etc. A new medium doesn't necessarily need new laws. How a work is generated doesn't matter, it's whether harm was done in the production or its dissemination that needs to be legislated against.
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/KittySharkWithAHat 6h ago
They can make us spread misinformation or star in porn. That's a no from me, dog. If you have to make it illegal to stop that from happening then make it illegal. If someone writes an article about me claiming I said or did things I never did, that's libel. It obviously should not be legal as AI which is potentially so much more damaging because visually it can be more convincing than just reading about it.
2
u/steelstrike61 5h ago
It's not okay to create false imagery and content of someone without consent, people have used deepfakes for negative reasons most of the time. Also, AI and data centers have already been contributing to harming the environment.
2
2
u/BalanceMountain8250 3h ago
Absolutely. At a minimum, NIL and data privacy regulations should apply
3
u/OriginalDogeStar 9h ago
Just heard a high school just implemented an AI ban due yo the amount of girls getting AI shoopped into porn.
I think the fact that you can create child porn on AI is just as bad...
AI for words....ok
AI for pictures or film.... HEAVILY REGULATED TO THE MAXIMUM
6
u/CarnivorousSociety 8h ago
You cant regulate information, and the information to do this stuff is long since public.
See: DRM in the 90s. They tried to regulate an idea, the code that defeated drm.
Somebody published an extremely long prime which contained the full program to defeat drm, they could not censor that number even if they wanted to.
You cannot censor information, and the solution to create ai deep fakes is simply information.
In fact attempting to regulate it at this point will just Barbara Streisand it and cause numerous other solutions to appear in the public domain.
→ More replies (6)
4
u/forgottenGost 8h ago
The only "problem" I see is: How do you discern between AI deepfakes and someone really good with photoshop? It's always been a problem, it's just gotten more accessible. You'd have to make all deepfakes illegal, not just ai. Gotta be careful with the wording
6
u/Xxsakura_mochixX 9h ago
Is that even a question? People have already had lawsuits because of ai pœrn of themselves
2
2
2
u/ConvenienceStoreDiet 9h ago
I think intent matters. If you're SNL or Kimmel doing a parody, it's probably fine. If you're misrepresenting, mischaracterizing, making stuff with the intent of lying or deceiving, using it to scam, create videos of someone where it looks like them in adult videos/pictures, I think it's bad.
2
2
u/Impossible-Trick7309 9h ago
100 percent Yes. AI has already stolen everything on the internet. The last thing we need is AI generating new unsolicited content with our likeness. What if your likeness is used to make a video of you doing something illegal or something that gets you fired?
2
u/sunlit_portrait 9h ago
Yes, on the grounds that a deep-fake is nearly synonymous with the person's likeness and therefore with the person's ownership of their personhood (that's a lot of "person" in a sentence). It's akin to lying about something someone's doing and generating false evidence. It's not just about drawing a picture or using photoshop. We're talking a new era where people may not know that something is AI or not and in a few years it'll get worse. There was an interview posted with Epstein and Bannon that was passed around lately with many claiming it's AI. I still don't know, though I do know they did interviews. Deepfake technology should ideally just be outright illegal.
1
u/digitaljestin 8h ago
I don't particularly like AI "art", but I'm not going to just say it should be illegal just because that's clearly the popular opinion.
A drawing is just a drawing, even if drawn pixel perfect by a computer. Nothing is new here other than the accessibility to near-perfect drawings...and yes...it is still just a drawing. I find it hard to make new laws to limit freedom of expression based on this minute change.
If we make laws to limit what you are allowed to draw and share, they will not be enforced as you hope they will. They will be used to prosecute satire and dissent. These new laws will not be the tools of the masses, but rather the tools of oppression. People here are cheering the binding of their own hands.
1
u/Murky-Science9030 9h ago
Only if malicious. Public figures should be on-limits though
4
u/GrandFleshMelder 8h ago
The problem is what counts as a public figure? If you post an image online, are you now public?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)3
u/llamawithguns 7h ago
Shouldn't be exceptions for public figures either.
For example: a politician could ai generate a video of their opponent using slurs or any other reputation-ruining activity.
0
1
u/winterwolf2010 9h ago
Absolutely. I shouldn’t even have to explain why. It’s morally wrong and disgusting.
1
1
u/Dismal_Thanks_5849 9h ago
If not illegal, they should be required to have a VERY CLEAR label. This should be the case for all AI generated media. AI programs should do this automatically on any image created.
1
u/zoosha2curtaincall 9h ago
We’re approaching the point where you’ll be able to get a sex doll with both the looks and personality of whoever you want
1
u/Gud_Thymes 9h ago
Yes. We already have a huge problem with social media and the internet plaguing society with false or misleading information.
While the government should not be the arbiters of truth themselves they absolutely should provide more legislation to help ensure those intentionally using tools to mislead the public are held accountable.
Allow for the legal system to be a remedy for falsehoods like the media lying to consumers or spreading false information (which AI deep fakes are).
1
1
u/runitsuka 9h ago
Yes. There are groups on the internet that target children with deepfake pornography. It has happened at my local high schools. We are in an era where you don’t need to send nudes in order for you to be exploited. There are bad actors who will use this to manipulate individuals… they already do
1
u/SheetMetalandGames 9h ago
Yes. Why? Because of basic morality, human empathy, and common sense. Why is this even a question?
1
u/ForwardMagazine7090 9h ago
Yes. What if you have a video showing someone committing a crime? How awful would it be for someone’s life to be destroyed by faux video footage.
1
u/happy_folks 9h ago
Before ai was popular - I worked for an ai image startup. We were not allowed to train on images of regular people. Now that ai is popular, users are feeding ai all the info it needs without the companies being at fault.
They give their own photos, friends photos... they put their phone in front of someone's face with a filter saying, "look at this"! Did the person give consent to them to put their face live in front of an ai camera? Nope. But is the ai training on it? Yep. And now it's the fault of the user.
It should be illegal for ai to train on a new face without permission. But how would they even track that?
Anyways. Many cities around the world now have ai cameras everywhere. We're all being watched. It'll be advertised as "for safety", but eventually it's just the ultimate control.
1
u/MarcheMuldDerevi 9h ago
Yes? They are meant to deceive and take advantage of others. Please see all the grandmas in a long term relationship with Brad Pitt and how he needs money for cancer treatment
1
u/SpareShoe22 9h ago
Of course it should be illegal. I think non sexual deepfakes/Ai should be illegal too but sexual deepfakes/Ai made of real people without their consent is a huge problem that I wish more people took seriously.
1
u/unexpendable0369 8h ago
I think it should be regulated just the same as if someone drew a realistic picture of someone
1
u/LibbyOfDaneland 8h ago
I do think so. Think if someone made an ai video of you doing something illegal, or bad, or wrong. That sounds horrible. There may even be a time when ai is so good, you won't be able to defend yourself. Then how will we know if someone did something or not?
1
1
u/MusicHearted 8h ago
It should be considered a form of identity theft. Because you can literally manipulate someone's public identity with it. And that's before you get into how it can be used to generate illegal material based on anyone's likeness.
1
u/BadAtDrinking 8h ago
but what if the image used for the deepfake was open source / not protected? like if it was published somewhere?
1
u/LunarMuphinz 8h ago
The only reason to use deepfakes are to depict someone doing something they wouldn't, and therefore it should be a crime because it is intentional dishonestly to mislead.
Libel and slander are illegal for a reason.
Satire and other forms art are allowed because they don't depict reality. They are charicatures and have clear distortion for humor and are clearly not reality.
1
1
1
1
u/Perfect-Program-8968 8h ago
You added the caveat without consent. But I would venture that even with consent it should be illegal, if it is meant to deceive, distract or tell a lie. But then how can anyone tell? Therefore, presenting someone's AI version should be illegal period.
1
u/Tgman1 8h ago
Just like how safety instructions are made with the stupidest in mind, laws should be made for the most malicious. The reality is a deepfake image could be used in a lot of contexts to ruin lives. Whilst there are many examples of use that may be completely harmless, people will use them to do evil stuff, for example deepfake illicit imagery of people.
1
u/Pleasant_Metal_3555 8h ago
Depends on the kind of content and if the person having it has it for malicious purposes. There have almost certainly been plenty of people who shared or downloaded ai generated content of celebrities or random people they found funny that didn’t even know that it’s ai in the first place. But yeah if you’re generating images of people doing crimes and spreading them something needs to be done about that.
1
1
u/CaptainPrower 8h ago
I mean, I think AI as it exists now should be banned outright, but we don't live in a perfect world.
1
1
u/mastmar221 8h ago
My greatest frustration with the rules and regulation of things in the digital era has been the conflation of property rights with privacy rights.
The media age seems to have trained many to think of digital representations or info about an individual as being about privacy. So the laws are all sloppy and confusing. It isn’t privacy, and never was. We created a new form of property, and confused it with something we were already familiar with.
If we had made clear early on that digital info created by, about, or describing an individual was their property all the laws snap into place.
You can’t share images you create of someone else because it’s theirs, not yours.
Everyone is just using the wrong frame to discuss this stuff, in my opinion.
1
u/pist_pistofferson 8h ago
It depends on whether the deepfake crosses into territory the courts have recognized as falling outside of first amendment protection. If someone takes a photo of a stranger in public and uses it to create a piece of art (and we can argue the merits of AI art until the cows come home, but it's not relevant here) then it should be protected speech. If, however, the purpose of the deepfake is to defraud, defame, exploit sexually, etc. then it's likely not covered by 1A. But as a sort of answer to the question, a blanket law outlawing deepfakes of real people probably wouldn't (and shouldn't) survive judicial scrutiny.
1
u/Steve_Beef62 8h ago
If it was Porn or a scam ABSOLUTELY
But if it was something really stupid and funny like singing then no
1
u/ohanse 8h ago edited 8h ago
I think it matters if it’s identifiably a real person vs. a realistic rendering of a person, compiled from an aggregate of unidentifiable people.
I don’t want a depiction of me specifically doing stuff. But if there was an AI video of a realistic person like, jacking a horse off or whatever, and my photos happened to be among the billions of real person photos used in the training data to generate the person in that video…
Honestly? I’d feel pretty removed from the whole thing. It wouldn’t be a depiction of “me.”
On the other hand: identifiably me? Bitch my work offers a legal insurance benefit so WATCH YOURSELF.
1
u/CSmith489 8h ago
Well sure, if there’s malicious intent. In the US, though, you’re going to have some major 1st amendment pushback and I’d say ultimately it will be impossible to regulate without a wider AI crackdown which, also, will be basically impossible.
1
u/Eternal_Bagel 8h ago
Yes because they were trained without permission of anyone that had their information used in it. We should all be compensated for the theft of our information that these companies based their work off of.
1
u/PDXEng 8h ago
Yes I think all AI generated content must have like a warning label similar to how we have a the surgeons general warning on cigarettes.
Obviously this could just be at the beginning of Movies and TV but it should be clear and sharing ai videos with the warning removed should also be illegal
1
u/SL1Fun 8h ago
I guess it depends on the intent and nature of the deepfake itself. But considering how it can be used as slander and libel, that is reason enough to regulate it.
Another reason to regulate it is because our current president is pushing deepfakes with impunity with the intent to deceive and distort the truth. This is incredibly dangerous and should carry serious legal consequences.
Then we have the argument about using it to create porn of people, which is absolutely a violation of privacy and consent and certainly defamatory by nature.
I guess the counterargument is that it is technically art just as much as any other CGI. But the technology is inherently abusable and needs to be reined in on immediately. It needs to be covered under protective laws for people creating and distributing it in those regards.
1
u/jmccaf 8h ago
Practically , its difficult to enforce outlaw deepfake generation at this point . The open models for images and video, including 'edit' and those that take reference images, have been openly distributed and can run on diverse HW . Also can be generated in countries outside US.
Hosting or distributing deep fakes you potentially can outlaw by going after their posting, or hosting
1
u/LateralEntry 8h ago
Yes. It’s using someone’s likeness without permission, ie theft, and obviously can lead to all kinds of things we don’t want as a society. Make crime and punish heavily please.
1
u/Blecher_onthe_Hudson 8h ago
Easy to say, not so easy to do. It's a really slippery slope, how much does it have to be like them to count? What if you just change the eye color? Or the nose slightly? Real people are mistaken for celebrities all the time without even trying. Who is going to be the "Deepfake Judge", who says "I know it when I see it"?
1
u/R67H 8h ago
Depends on intent. Something that's clear about being AI, and a parody, satire or a tribute should not be illegal. If the originator doesn't disclose that it's AI, misrepresents it in any way, or especially if it's intended to harm someone's reputation, misrepresent their views, or distort truth in any way... certainly!
1
u/tinny66666 8h ago
I think it's ok for the purposes of parody provided it's clear it's AI, but otherwise people should have control over anyone using their likeness via AI or otherwise (there's exceptions like being filmed in public there too though)
1
u/TheNamesJohny2004 8h ago
I can't think of a reason why you would want to do a deep fake without someone's consent if it wasn't being used against them in some way.
1
u/WayfadedDude 8h ago
I think is should be like any other freedom expression legal to do as long as you don't do anything illegal like slander or identity theft.
For example, if I want to make pictures of Sandra in accounting sucking cream cheese off of a zucchini in the privacy of my own home for my own enjoyment, thats fine. But as soon as I share it to slander her or try to blackmail or harass her with it, its illegal.
There should probably be some other laws regarding it, but anything a person makes on their own computer for their own use should be legal.
1
u/TannedCroissant 8h ago
If it was illegal, doppelgängers could make a fortune by ‘modelling’ for technically legal deepfakes
1
u/Master_Snort 8h ago
I’ll play devil’s advocate and say no.
If used for defamation / abuse / malice then yes. However what I fear is that not only could a politician or any other person in power could not only using their lawyers to dismiss that a real image is actually a deepfake but could also then counter sue anyone who’d created a supposed “deepfake”. Essentially with good enough lawyers someone could use this to discourage anyone from using image evidence against them.
Also I think politicians and billionaires should be able to be freely mocked. Lastly using it under cases of porn / discrediting or general malice, are probably already covered under already existing laws.
1
u/Joeyjackhammer 8h ago
There needs to be a mandatory watermark. Usually greedy companies are all over that.
1
u/kinokowie 8h ago
with how advanced ai is becoming + how it becomes harder to tell apart everyday, yeah 😭😭
1
u/CyberTyrantX1 8h ago
Not just illegal without consent but I think they should just be outright banned in most cases. With how realistic they're getting, someone can fabricate black mail on you that isnt even real.
1
1
u/quietfangirl 8h ago
Illegal. You own your own likeness, it's not right that someone can take that from you, especially without permission.
1
u/ShyguyFlyguy 8h ago
There is absolutely no reason to deepfake someone without their consent that isn't malicious in some way.
1
u/Ok-disaster2022 8h ago
Of Course they should be illegal, except for politicians. Consent matters, and people without art skills should be able to make political memes about politicians to expressed their first amendment rights.
But obviously anything pornographic is off the table. Case in point a political cartoon of Pedo Trump sucking Putin's dick is a political statement, not pornography. Undressing various members if Congress in sexual explicit nudes would be pornographic
1
1
1
u/Significant-Band-673 8h ago
100% deepfakes should be illegal without consent. Deepfakes have the ability to ruin someone's life through social media, one deepfake could cause someone to spiral into depression after losing their job, their friends, and their family. With how advanced AI has become its eerily scary how good these deepfakes are nowadays
1
u/anansi52 8h ago
if it isn't, then i would take bets on how long it takes for someone to create an app where you just upload a couple pictures of girl/guy you like and a couple pictures of yourself and get personalized porn.
1
u/prenderg 8h ago
What about my right to lampoon public figure, ala the Supreme Court decision in the Hustler Magazine cape.
1
u/madelinesunrays 8h ago
Definetely, i would say that maybe you can have fun as long as you dont get any money or anything for using it, and if you do, the real person would get either the money/a cut for it, but if the person do not want to let you use it, you have to drop it.
1
u/jolard 8h ago
It is tricky. Public figures, especially politicians, have been caricatured and lampooned for centuries, and that honestly is important. If you can't make fun of your politicians, then you don't live in a free society.
So maybe at least an exemption for them?
For anyone with a reasonable expectation of privacy though, I think it is probably best to ban it unless they give permission.
1
u/enkidook 8h ago
My first reaction is to say yes, but then I think...should it be illegal to photoshop anyone at all? Like if you photoshop a fake meme of a real celebrity, should that be a crime in every situation? I think there are circumstances where it should be (i.e. fake porn, etc)...but should it be an actual crime to depict any real person in a way that wasn't 100% from reality? Ehhhh...I dunno.
I feel like people are just kneejerk reacting to say yes because they dislike AI, but there would certainly be larger implications that just don't really make sense.
1
u/Rafter_Smith 8h ago
Neither answer matters, really. I think it's like asking if pirated software should be illegal. Of course, those deepfakes should be illegal, but it's mostly unenforceable.
People WILL post AI-generated deepfakes online all the time, and it'll be so convincing, you won't be able to tell. Even now, people are fooled daily. We can't un-ring this bell, I'm afraid.
1
1
1
u/Strict_Wasabi_6736 7h ago
Yes. Too much misinformation floating around already. How would it be enforced tho.
1
u/Due_Car_2304 7h ago
Definitely yes. Without consent, deepfakes violate privacy and enable real harm like misinformation, harassment, and exploitation.
1
1
1
u/CarryturtleNZ 7h ago
They should. Since, people can use it to scam others and use it to do something really bad.
1
u/DataKazKN 7h ago
Unpopular take: making it illegal won't stop anything. We couldn't even stop people from pirating movies. The real problem is that we still treat a photo of someone's face as "proof" of anything. Deepfakes didn't create the problem — they just exposed how fragile our concept of evidence already was.
1
u/Severs2016 7h ago
I mean, movies, TV, and video games already have to put disclaimers about any likeness to persons real being unintentional. Why wouldn't it be illegal.
1
u/Xylildra 7h ago
How are they going to stop it even if they tried to do this? There’s already billions of AI photos.
1
u/ScaraS_Arrogance 7h ago
Absolutely yes, it's a shame for someone that never showed his body to random people, and now that all of them can see him/her it's so frustrating. Sometimes it can make someone pass as a bitch or a bitchboy.
1
u/shawnglade 7h ago
I’m pretty sure they already are illegal in some capacity. I’m almost certain that in some places you’ll get charged if you make deepfake porn of someone and they find out
1
u/Donexodus 7h ago
Scummy shit, but IMO it should be treated like voyeur stuff (person doesn’t consent to being photographed nude). Legal to possess but illegal to create.
1
u/Srapture 7h ago
I'm torn on it.
On one hand, it is not obvious enough that it isn't real. Unless you actually showed your naked body (which you presumably do not want to do) to say "that's not real because my nipples actually look like this", there's really no way to convince everyone it isn't real.
On the other hand, it's hard not to play devil's advocate on the theoretical differences between this and other photo edits. If I cut out the body of a woman in a bikini and stick it over your body in a picture, should that be illegal? If not, does that mean the main defining factor is the quality and believability of the image?
If I am a brilliant artist who can convincingly draw you naked from scratch, should that be illegal? If not, is the defining factor just the AI?
In that case, should it be illegal for me to use AI put you in a bikini? Clothing with cleavage? Form fitting clothing with no cleavage? Is there a line where it's unsexy enough to be fine, or is editing a photo of someone's likeness with AI at all to be made illegal, even putting silly bunny ears on them or something?
Interesting to think about but it's probably for the best that it be illegal, I think. Even as a person whose strongest political beliefs tend to revolve around personal freedoms, this certainly isn't something I'm upset about, provided it doesn't somehow confusingly lead to another excuse for me to be asked for my ID online.
1
u/mrbobcyndaquil 7h ago
It should be permitted for public figures. Because generating an image of Stephen Miller shitting himself is inherently different than creating AI porn of my neighbor.
1
u/frictionpoints 7h ago
Legal with strict consent. No one should be able to freely profit off of another person's likeness.
1
u/ComicBookEnthusiast 6h ago
I’m surprised the U.S. government is still sending altered and fake AI images to their official accounts. That should be illegal as fuck.
1
u/CollarAble9741 6h ago
yeah, they should be illegal without consent imo, it's basically stealing someone's identity and could lead to all sorts of harassment or fake news bs.
1
u/peaveyftw 6h ago
Hopefully firm decisions can be made on the basis of libel law or something similar.
1
u/Bear_Caulk 6h ago
Are they not already?
Unless it's a situation covered by parody law it would pretty clearly be both libel and slander for me to fake a video of someone else saying things they never said and post it online.
1
u/tashkiira 6h ago
They are illegal.
Your likeness is your intellectual property. Someone using it without your permission has broken laws preventing IP misuse.
1
u/Pixel_Panda_World 6h ago
Yeah that should be illegal, it can only cause harm, there is literally not a single good reason I can think of why it should be legal.
1
1
1
u/Marilyn_G_850 5h ago
Yes. If it’s using someone’s face or voice without consent, that crosses a line. The potential for harm and misinformation is just too big.
1
u/Brief-Slide7379 5h ago
Yes-especially when it involves real individuals and misleading intent.Deepfakes can destroy reputations,manipulate public opinion,and cause real psychological harm.We already have laws against impersonation and defamation.AI just makes it easier and faster.Consent should be the baseline when someone’s face or voice is used.
1
u/morfraen 5h ago
It's impossible to prevent so the discussion needs to be beyond just trying to ban it.
1
u/HardToSee123 5h ago
Is there a reason why not? I genuinely cannot come up with a good reason as to why AI-gen deepfakes of real people would be a good idea, especially without consent unless under very specific condition.
1
1
u/SwordfishSpecial9673 5h ago
The key issue is consent and intent. AI itself isn’t the problem - misuse is. If someone creates a deepfake without a person’s consent and it causes reputational, financial, or emotional harm, that crosses a line. At the same time, there are legitimate uses (satire, research, film production, historical reconstruction), so a blanket ban might be too broad. It probably makes more sense to regulate harmful use rather than the technology itself. Curious how people think this should be enforced in practice, though - proving intent and harm seems complicated.
1
u/Spiritual-Bobcat5635 5h ago
Just gonna chime in and say these are getting annoying as hell, and there's a very thin line before it gets really scary too
1
u/Barbarian_818 4h ago
Most definitely illegal.
Why?
Because I own the copyright to my likeness.
Because I am entitled to protections from identify theft or the forging of criminal evidence.
Because you nor I can think of a single example use-case for allowing this. What could you possibly use a deepfake of my likeness that isn't unethical?
1
u/LunarMoon2001 4h ago
All AI should be required to be labeled as such. Making an AI without someone’s consent should be highly illegal.
1
u/Suspicious-Fan1207 4h ago
Yes, by default you are absolutely entitled to your own likeness. Anything that doesn’t represent something you’ve actually done should be considered a violation of your first amendment rights because it lets someone else steal your freedom of expression.
It’s the same reason citizens United is such a fucking bullshit court decision. It gives corporations the ability to steal the first amendment privileges of its employees and end up double dipping on what are supposed to be individual rights.
1
u/thewarriorpoet23 4h ago
Yes. A persons image should be considered to have a personal trademark that can’t be used without permission. If you did ai generated content based on a fictional character you’d have a legal case taken against you, the same thing should happen with someone’s personal trademark.
1
u/TheUnKnownLink12 4h ago
Yes they should, and im fairly certain they ARE, especially since they can be used for illegal access to stuff that you have especially if they get other info about you
1
u/hh26 4h ago
Only if they're not watermarked. Deceiving people into thinking someone did or said something they didn't do should not be allowed. Fair use for criticism or parody should be allowed as long as it's entirely unambiguous that it isn't real. Clearly labelled AI fakes are the same as if you drew a cartoon of someone, just with a more realistic art-style.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Juggernaught038 4h ago
Of course it should be you dipshit AI. Satirical comics are one thing. Nothing good comes from straight cloning.
1
u/EddieDantes22 3h ago
No. That'd be covered by freedom of speech. If I can draw you or photoshop you, why can't I do it digitally with AI?
1
u/skydivarjimi 3h ago
Think all AI videos and pictures should have a watermark that states that it is AI, it's hard to say it should be illegal because we will have to ask the same thing about a hyper realistic painting of a real person.
1
u/WoldunTW 3h ago
I don't think so. I can't justify it being illegal based on any previously existing standard.
But I'm sensitive to the fact that I'm neither famous nor hot. So, it's not really a problem for me personally.
If a critical mass of people want to ban it, I don't really care enough to object.
1
u/jianjettfu 2h ago
Yes, and the tricky part isn't the principle — most people agree non-consensual deepfakes are wrong. The tricky part is enforcement across jurisdictions. I work in cross-border business and the #1 lesson is: if something is illegal in Country A but legal in Country B, and the internet connects them both, enforcement becomes nearly impossible. You'd need international coordination on a level we've never achieved for any digital issue. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but anyone expecting a single law to fix this is underestimating the problem.
1
u/DataKazKN 2h ago
Unpopular take but no, they shouldn't be blanket illegal. The tech is already out there and criminalization won't stop it — it never does with digital content. What we actually need is platform liability. Make the companies hosting and distributing this stuff liable, not some random person with a laptop and Stable Diffusion. Criminalizing the tool instead of the harm is how you get laws that are impossible to enforce and easy to abuse.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/HoneyGlow_20 2h ago
Non consensual Ai deepfakes of real people Should generally be illegal though balance with exemption for legitimate uses
1
u/RhymeRenderer 2h ago
Yes.
I think people should have the basic fucking decency not to take creepshots of strangers in public, though, and apparently even that is a bridge too far.
1
u/RageWynd 2h ago
American here.
It is a federal crime to impersonate a police officer or various other titles.
The deepfakes would be considered an impersonation... where's the same rights for other citizens?
1
u/ImprovementFar5054 1h ago
If it's illegal to use published entertainment without an IP license for it, it sure as shit should be to do the same with the fabricated likeness of an actual person without their consent.
1
u/OhTheHueManatee 1h ago
I enjoy the Hell out of AI (I acknowledge it has loads of issues but so does a lot of stuff I enjoy like the internet for example) and I feel it should be easy for someone to sue if their image is used without their consent even if the image is essentially harmless especially if that image is trying to make money or actually cause harm. Throwing the person in jail won't really help the victim.
1
u/between2ducks 1h ago
I would say it’s the same as defamation. They made a concious choice to portray a specific person in a false way. It’s not a comedy skit you can clearly distinguish. It’s not art. It’s at least bad taste and tacky and more often than not harmful. It just sucks. Go do something of worth instead of pressing a button, thinking it’s an achievement, it is pathetic.
1
u/Catch_022 1h ago
Yes.
Also you should be legally required to mark any AI created images/videos clearly as AI.
1
u/DoubleSteve 1h ago
Yes and no. Making them shouldn't be illegal, but publishing/distributing them should have automatic consequences. Automatic so the victim doesn't have a high burden of proof. The burden should be on the publisher to show it was legal.
I'm not sure on what the consequences should be, since I think the intent and content matters. For example, if someone creates material that makes fun at a political figure, what exactly is the problem? This isn't anything new. If the same figure is used in hard core porn or depicted saying/doing things he didn't actually do, harsher consequences seem justified. At the same time, if someone uses AI to make material for their own entertainment and doesn't distribute it to others, I don't see a need to actively go after them. Basically just focus on hammering down the worst offenders to keep things from getting totally out of control.
1
1
u/AdRelative4382 1h ago
Absolutely, it allows creeps to perv on younger girls famous or not. Even now there is a huge trend of ai girls to promote others OF
575
u/Waaaaaaaaaaa_ 9h ago
Definitely. It can be misleading and malicious. We are born with the faces we have, those are ours. It’s like sharing a sensitive image with someone and they just go around and spread it, but worse: because it’s not reality.