Quote:
Originally Posted by 2MuchMark
Of course, no CP but thats not what I am asking about.
Let's say you build a gallery of an AI model and put it up on a website. Now one day someone says show me the 2257. It cannot exist because she is not a real person. So, then what?
Another question: If you take pictures of a nude model for a website, then you get her photo ID etc and have a proper, legal 2257 policy in place. What if instead of a photograph, it is a painting? If I was to paint a nude, and post it, I would assume that some level of 2257 is still required, even though it is now an artist rendering. When AI "paints" an image, is it not considered to be an artist rendering?
I would assume that legally speaking, it would be best to keep all of the prompts and other data used when creating AI images. Would keeping that data be worth anything legally when it comes to 2257?
|
Im not a lawyer, but from my understanding, 2257 is for porn content depicting ACTUAL people.
So if AI creates an image of someone who does not exist, there is no need for 2257.
However, a painting or AI generated image of a model (an actual person) would require 2257 documents (along with the rights to use the model’s likeness and other generic legal requirements)