A mother and her 14-year-old daughter are advocating for better protections for victims after AI-generated nude images of the teen and other female classmates were circulated at a high school in New Jersey.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, officials are investigating an incident involving a teenage boy who allegedly used artificial intelligence to create and distribute similar images of other students – also teen girls - that attend a high school in suburban Seattle, Washington.
The disturbing cases have put a spotlight yet again on explicit AI-generated material that overwhelmingly harms women and children and is booming online at an unprecedented rate. According to an analysis by independent researcher Genevieve Oh that was shared with The Associated Press, more than 143,000 new deepfake videos were posted online this year, which surpasses every other year combined.
Very rarely do you need consent to take peoples pictures
*in the US.
In the US, the thought is that if you are in a public place, you have no presumption of privacy. If you’re walking down the street, or shopping in a grocery store or whatever else, anyone can snap a picture of you.
Other countries have different values and laws such that you may need a person’s permission to photograph them even if they are in a public place.
That thought is a pile of bull crap. If you really think you have zero presumption of privacy then I have the right to follow right behind you with a sign that says “idiot ahead”. Laws like this are so written for the drug war and for big media not for us.
Not saying I agree with it, that’s just the way the laws are written.
A good example of how crappy this law works out is paparazzi. They harass celebrities just to get any halfway decent photo. Then they can sell the photo, the celebrity has no say in the matter. And to make things even worse, if the celebrity happens to use the photo of themselves in any way, the photographer can demand payment because they own the copyright.
And this is exactly what I was talking about. We need tules that say you own your own image.
That much I can agree with. If someone takes a picture of me, I should have some say in how that image is used, even if the default assumption is that a person in public is plainly visible to everyone including photographers.
But there’s a lot of nuance here. Maybe a celebrity, or any person really, doesn’t want an unflattering image used. Fair enough I suppose, but to what extent is that actually enforceable?
Or maybe the subject wants to use the image of themselves for their own purposes. Does the photographer deserve compensation for their role in creating the image?
What about unflattering images of politicians or government employees? What about criminals? There’s a line to be walked here as well. We already have this sort of concept in slander laws. Public figures have a higher bar to prove damages resulting from statements that might otherwise be considered slanderous or libelous. There are also free speech and freedom of the press issues associated with government entities.
Yes, you should have a right to decide how your image is used, and yes, you should probably have some shared ownership of images of yourself unless you agree otherwise. But the reality isn’t so clear cut.
Admittedly, I haven’t looked into how other parts of the world that don’t default to lack of privacy in public handle this. Some of these questions must have already been hashed out.
Sorry, I forgot that the US is decades behind the rest of the world in privacy laws.
Well, maybe you could start with this aspect.