Any image not covered by another law and made by a human being. The new law covers machine generated images only.
So, painfully hand-drawn photorealistic images that no-one is actually making?
Mm, I think I’ll confine my interest just to the kind of images that are actually being made and actually harming real women right now, thanks.
I think you’re going down your own road on that one. Free speech has never been dependent upon copyright.
Occam’s Razor would suggest that this law covers AI generated media because AI generated media is what’s in the news right now for causing a lot of trouble and because AI generated media is increasingly available to everyone with zero skill to create extremely realistic images. It’s no more complicated than that.
FWIW, there recently HAS been copyright granted on AI generated images after the person prompting them showed they made multiple changes, prompt revisions, etc. So it was ruled to have significant human input. But prompt revising and inpainting, etc still won’t let me create an AI deepfake image in NJ in commission of a crime.
Not quite
Again, the law covers AI generated images only. If you want use Photoshop or something similar to create an image, this law does not apply. How photorealistic can you get without using an AI? I don’t know. I don’t want to know.
Apparently, I was unclear. If a human being creates an image, in general, the copyright belongs to them. IIRC there was a case where Peta was claiming copyright for an image belonged to a chimp who happened to hit a button on a camera. The court ruled a chimp could not claim copyright because they were not legally a person.
The same applies to AI generated images. They cannot be copyrighted because the AI that made them is not legally a person.
If you are not legally a person, you have no Constitutional rights. If you have no Constitutional rights, your rights cannot be infringed by any law.
We know that AI deep fakes can be made by anybody. That does not explain the difference under the law. Unfortunately, Governor Murphy’s words on how similar laws have been struck down on first amendment grounds, were on the news and not in the statement on his website. Again, AI’s have no right to free speech.
Significant changes (I forget the exact legal term) have always applied to altering any image, statue etc. If you start with an image made by a human being and alter it enough to be considered a new work, the copyright on that new work is yours.
You are correct that the NJ law would still apply to a modified AI generated image. I don’t want to have to read the law again. But it sounds like by the time you modified an AI image enough not to covered by this law, it will have taken as much effort and time as just creating the image without AI.
I get what you’re saying, I just don’t think it has the application here that you’re convinced it has. That said, I guess it doesn’t matter either.
Also, the law criminalizing AI deepfakes only applies when they’re used in commission of another crime. Traditionally, free speech doesn’t apply in those circumstances anyway. “Free speech” isn’t a defense for committing fraud, for instance.
You realize Photoshop itself has built-in generative AI nowadays, right? Including in ways you might not expect or be able to toggle off. “Photoshop” is not the opposite of “generative AI” and a test of this law on it could very well apply to 'shopped images made with any new version.
Better hang on to that old version of GIMP…
I think it matters for two reasons-
As Governor Murphy said, other laws have been struck down for violating the first amendment. If the law only applies to AI generated works, that is not going to happen.
Second, and more importantly- If the law applies only to AI generated deep fakes, any deep fake produced by a human being remains legal. It does not matter how realistic it is or if something like Photoshop was used to make it.
By definition, humans don’t produce deep fakes as the term applies specifically to AI generated content.
D’oh! I had forgotten that. Replace ‘Photoshop’ with a different photo editing program.
Second, while a built in AI has its uses I’m thinking it is still possible to edit images in Photoshop without one. A feature that cannot be turned off when you don’t want to use it is definitely a bug not a feature.
ETA On Preview
I could swear I’d seen the term used for human produced content.
If you prefer “the law applies only to AI generated photorealistic image. Any such image produced by a human being remains legal”
Move your own goalposts yourself, thanks.
Most modern photo editors now include at least some form of AI or machine learning for tasks like auto-enhance, object selection, or noise reduction. And there are only a handful you could use that are anywhere near as good as PS for doing the kind of work that would qualify for this discussion.
Oh, I had no idea you’ve never used commercial software before in your life…
I am not moving the goalposts. I used Photoshop because it was the first software name that came to mind.
I have indeed. I always turn off autocorrect in any word processor I use.
You want me to do the work, that’s goalpost-moving. You name the editor to consider -and be aware that while I already named GIMP, actually most people using GIMP for high-level work tend to use plugins like GIMP-ML that do use AI.
It seems to me that AI isn’t actually relevant here. If Sophie poses nude for her boyfriend Oliver, and Oliver later shares the photo around to his friends, and Jack feeds a prom picture of Grace into a nudify app, and shares that picture around to his friends, it seems to me that both Oliver and Jack have committed fundamentally the same offense, and Sophie and Grace are equally victimized.
While I do agree with the basic principle, I would have to say Oliver’s offense is a little worse because he’s in a position of trust with regard to Sophie in a way Grace isn’t to Jack, based on what we know.
Both are the same sexual violation to me. Just one has an aggravating circumstance in addition.
First, can the generative AI in Photodhop not be turned off?
Second,
“tend to”
So you’re saying that it could be done using GIMP, so long as you don’t use a plugin that uses AI?
You may have seen it used incorrectly. The “Deep” in “Deep fake” refers to “deep learning” the process by which the AI knows what a boob looks like.
And, yes, the law applies specifically to AI generated content. Just probably not for the logical gymnastics you’re applying to it.
All the generative AI stuff (Firefly) can be turned off, only some of the Machine Learning (Sensei) stuff can be, some of it is used in background for some tools anyway. So whether the law would consider it qualified or not would need to be tested .
And that’s just the current situation.
Give it 6 months, Adobe will have even more GAI integrated, I’m sure. It’s the way the world is very, very rapidly moving. I work in IT, I see the pace and how it’s accelerating on a daily basis.
Sure. But nobody who uses GIMP for anything like this kind of work is going to forgo their plugins, so it’s a great useless loophole you’ve uncovered there.
I mean, seriously, do you think the intersection of “Anti-AI Purist” and “woman-hating photo-manipulating sex offender” is anything but a non-zero set?
Hey, I’m sure that somewhere out there is some Photoshop wizard who is deeply upset that they spent years honing their craft and now anyone with a smart phone and a Telegram account can ask for fake nudes.
They will if they’re working before those plugins were invented. People have been editing photos on computers for decades, and people have been editing photos in darkrooms for long before that. If someone in the 1990s used 1990s techniques to edit one person’s face onto the nude body of a different person, how is that any different from someone nowadays doing the same thing with AI-assisted tools?
It isn’t, and I’d also criminalize those dudes.