AI Porn and 2257

[2MuchMark]

Not sure if this has been discussed here before or not, but what do sites do regarding their 18 USC 2257 declaration when they have a site that contains AI generated porn?

[celandina]

I think no different then any other art work.... Show kids and get into trouble.

[Wautier]

It's unchartered territories, but common sense dictates that you would have to have trained it on content that you own or have permission to use.

So, should the authorities or anyone else need any proof, you would simply show the documentation of the original dataset, and if you really do own it, and if it wasn't some type of usenet or tumblr 100GB pack of amateur pictures shit, you should be just fine.

But, train it on potentially-CP type of selfies, you could get into trouble, maybe.. hypothetically -- eventually... But, remember the unchartered territories part... it's the wild wild west.

[celandina]

Originally Posted by Wautier

It's unchartered territories, but common sense dictates that you would have to have trained it on content that you own or have permission to use.

So, should the authorities or anyone else need any proof, you would simply show the documentation of the original dataset, and if you really do own it, and if it wasn't some type of usenet or tumblr 100GB pack of amateur pictures shit, you should be just fine.

But, train it on potentially-CP type of selfies, you could get into trouble, maybe.. hypothetically -- eventually... But, remember the unchartered territories part... it's the wild wild west.

USC 2257 has nothing to do with copyright/ownership. It is ALL about age/underage

[NoWhErE]

Originally Posted by celandina

USC 2257 has nothing to do with copyright/ownership. It is ALL about age/underage

You're responding to an actual lawyer who specializes in adult law in the US. I THINK he knows what he's talking about.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by Wautier

It's unchartered territories, but common sense dictates that you would have to have trained it on content that you own or have permission to use.

So, should the authorities or anyone else need any proof, you would simply show the documentation of the original dataset, and if you really do own it, and if it wasn't some type of usenet or tumblr 100GB pack of amateur pictures shit, you should be just fine.

But, train it on potentially-CP type of selfies, you could get into trouble, maybe.. hypothetically -- eventually... But, remember the unchartered territories part... it's the wild wild west.

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?

[NoWhErE]

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)

[Rochard]

You cannot have 2257 no an AI generated image...

[Colmike9]

Originally Posted by Rochard

You cannot have 2257 no an AI generated image...

Right like, how are you going to get the IDs?..

[The Porn Nerd]

Originally Posted by Colmike9

Right like, how are you going to get the IDs?..

Have the AI generate them?

[pornlaw]

As always its a MC/VISA issue not a legal issue...

Unveiling the Future With Mastercard's New AI Rules....

"It’s important to note that if AI or deepfake images or video footage bear the image or strong likeness of an individual, all the standard practices should be observed: 2257 documents, including a model agreement, consent, proof of age and identity, etc. Those remain key, so consult your attorney."

https://www.xbiz.com/features/277272...s-new-ai-rules

[celandina]

Originally Posted by NoWhErE

You're responding to an actual lawyer who specializes in adult law in the US. I THINK he knows what he's talking about.

Maybe he missed this, or needs to go back to law school :

https://www.justice.gov/criminal/cri...certifications

as I have said 2257 has nothing to do with ownership... read for yourself, it is ALL about protecting underage persons by means of age verification.

In order to protect children from sexual exploitation crimes, federal law imposes name- and age-verification, record keeping, and labeling requirements on producers of visual depictions of actual human beings engaged in actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct (See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2257, 2257A). This means that producers of pornography, or depictions of any sexual activity using actual people, are required to verify that the performers are of legal age (18–years–old or older) by maintaining records of the performers’ names and ages. They also are required to disclose the location of these records. Under the law, all records are subject to inspection.

[2MuchMark]

All good so far. So let's consider this:

Let's say a website generates a bunch of AI images of a sexy girl. No images of people, famous or otherwise, were used as prompts. Now one day, some legal or policy requirement requires producing 2257 documentation. Then what?

Or put another way - lets say you put up a website today consisting only of AI generated nude content. You can't put up a 2257 page because you as the site owner and prompt generator, have no records to maintain. Your 2257 page would be a lie.

If you go to https://deepfake.com which is all AI content, there is no 2257 page (that I saw). Furthermore, if you read this page https://creators.deepfake.com/p/terms-of-service it says "While nudity is allowed in the content created by Content Creators, the Content Creator is solely and completely responsible for obtaining and complying with the record keeping requirements of Section 2257 of the United States Code." So... WAT?!?!? Am I missing something here? How can the content creators have 2257 docs of AI generated models?

AI generated nudie sites are popping up all over the place. What should website owners do to make sure they remain legal as far as 2257 goes?

[Wautier]

You need to understand the following, in order to generate AI nudes:
- You have to train it on real data sets, of real nudes of real people -- for whose nudes you will need to have the proper documentation for, therefore the 2257 WILL apply, if you disagree here, please explain why.

Just because it's "AI" doesn't mean that you can now completely ignore the fact that you will at some point have to prove that your "AI" wasn't trained illegally, and that the pictures that you are showing were created from the nude pictures that you had rights to, and that they were of people of age as well.

[Robbie]

Or what if a person uses AI to GENERATE an ID and a signed 2257 for a scene with real people in it.
LOL!
Good luck to the govt. keeping up with technology.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by Wautier

You need to understand the following, in order to generate AI nudes:
- You have to train it on real data sets, of real nudes of real people -- for whose nudes you will need to have the proper documentation for, therefore the 2257 WILL apply, if you disagree here, please explain why.

Yes I disagree, here's why: AI-generated images of people do not directly correspond to real individuals. Instead, these images are synthesized from patterns and features learned during the model's training process, which involves analyzing a vast collection of images. The model learns to understand and replicate various aspects of human appearance, such as facial features, expressions, and poses, without copying any specific individual's likeness.

When you generate an image of a person using one of these AI models, the resulting image is a unique creation that doesn't depict a real person you can specifically identify. It's an entirely new entity synthesized by the AI based on its learned data. This means you typically cannot know "who" the image is since it doesn't correspond to an existing person, unless of course you use an image of a person as a part of the prompt. For example, if I use an image of Angelina Jolie in my prompt process, THEN the result would be based on a real person. Am I right?

Originally Posted by Wautier

Just because it's "AI" doesn't mean that you can now completely ignore the fact that you will at some point have to prove that your "AI" wasn't trained illegally,

Wouldn't it be up to the other party to prove that my AI was trained illegally? If you accuse someone of a crime, you have to prove they committed that crime.

Originally Posted by Wautier

and that the pictures that you are showing were created from the nude pictures that you had rights to, and that they were of people of age as well

Yes, but I would suggest this. If the Image Prompt (an actual image) was of someone that the creator did not have the rights to use, then that person would have the problem. To me that sounds legally sound. is that right?

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Or what if a person uses AI to GENERATE an ID and a signed 2257 for a scene with real people in it.
LOL!
Good luck to the govt. keeping up with technology.

That of course would be a fake ID. Regardless of whether or not the people depicted are fake.

But yeah you are right - the government will probably take a while to jump on this...

[TheLegacy]

Ok my understanding is this - we already have rule set out for real models and that's as far as it goes. The government has only been aware of this recently since Taylor Swift and a bit of a concern prior. Yet there is nothing in place regarding AI and what we want to use it for. So expect some sort of debate happening in the next year or two until it becomes law - right now though processors are not sure either what to do so they may decide to play it safe and not accept payments so as to avoid potential and future legal problems

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

As always its a MC/VISA issue not a legal issue...

Unveiling the Future With Mastercard's New AI Rules....

"It’s important to note that if AI or deepfake images or video footage bear the image or strong likeness of an individual, all the standard practices should be observed: 2257 documents, including a model agreement, consent, proof of age and identity, etc. Those remain key, so consult your attorney."

https://www.xbiz.com/features/277272...s-new-ai-rules

Hi Mike,

From that article: "Consent must be established if AI images and deepfakes are based on a specific person". So if the content is not based on a specific person, then consent can't be obtained. So then, no 2257 required?

[Kelli58]

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

Not sure if this has been discussed here before or not, but what do sites do regarding their 18 USC 2257 declaration when they have a site that contains AI generated porn?

For now, processors are simply asking to see model releases and 2257 docs if the AI-generated images are based on real people (ie, real porn stars). They want to see that the person you are making AI images of consent in the first place and, of course, that they are over 18 years of age.

So it really falls under two categories - ownership of the source material (civil matter/model releases) and then the legal issue of age (criminal matter/2257).

[nakeddutch]

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

Not sure if this has been discussed here before or not, but what do sites do regarding their 18 USC 2257 declaration when they have a site that contains AI generated porn?

Perhaps, the 2257 of "Anime porn" or "cartoon porn"
- even furry dogs are legal!

nothing's, real - anyway

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by nakeddutch

Perhaps, the 2257 of "Anime porn" or "cartoon porn"
- even furry dogs are legal!

nothing's, real - anyway

Hey, that's a good point...! What is the difference between Anime Porn, and AI Porn, legally speaking? Neither are real people, neither have records that can be kept, both can be considered works of art, etc.

[Colmike9]

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

Hey, that's a good point...! What is the difference between Anime Porn, and AI Porn, legally speaking? Neither are real people, neither have records that can be kept, both can be considered works of art, etc.

What if someone was drawing/rendering anime porn, but now they switched to drawing "with the help of AI", Would that change anything?

[pornlaw]

These are all questions for your CC processor. It isn't a legal issue. There's been a total of 2 prosecutions for a 2257 violation in the history of 2257.

There is no case law to base any opinion on.

Its all guessing.

Your CC processor should know the answer and if they dont, they can go upstream and ask.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by Colmike9

What if someone was drawing/rendering anime porn, but now they switched to drawing "with the help of AI", Would that change anything?

In a way its kind of the same thing.

If you draw a picture of a nude woman with blonde hair and blue eyes and other physical attributes, it's an artist rendition. If you draw or paint an image that is detailed, it is still a rendition. If you AI it so it is incredibly lifelike, it is still a rendition. There is no 2257.

But what if this happens: AI Renders look realistic enough to fool people. What if law enforcement asks for 2257, and they do not believe you when you tell them the images are renditions without 2257 docs?

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

These are all questions for your CC processor. It isn't a legal issue. There's been a total of 2 prosecutions for a 2257 violation in the history of 2257.

There is no case law to base any opinion on.

Its all guessing.

Your CC processor should know the answer and if they dont, they can go upstream and ask.

Of course it is a legal issue. https://www.justice.gov/criminal/cri...certifications.

Although, maybe you have helped just answer the question. The document above contains this:

"This means that producers of pornography, or depictions of any sexual activity using actual people, are required to verify that the performers are of legal age (18–years–old or older) by maintaining records of the performers’ names and ages. "

So if AI renditions are not actual people, then, no 2257?

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

Of course it is a legal issue. https://www.justice.gov/criminal/cri...certifications.

Although, maybe you have helped just answer the question. The document above contains this:

"This means that producers of pornography, or depictions of any sexual activity using actual people, are required to verify that the performers are of legal age (18–years–old or older) by maintaining records of the performers’ names and ages. "

So if AI renditions are not actual people, then, no 2257?

Its not because you can be compliant with the law but the platform or processor can still reject your content.

Platforms and processors and CC companies are making up shit as they go along.

I recently heard that to upload content to a certain platform, you need a current ID. Meaning, if the ID is old or expired even if the ID was current at the date of production (what the law requires) they will still reject the content.

[$5 submissions]

Originally Posted by wautier

it's unchartered territories, but common sense dictates that you would have to have trained it on content that you own or have permission to use.

quoted for truth

[blackmonsters]

I don't see any difference between AI images and Photoshopped images.

The simple fact that the image is put together by the machine rather than a human doesn't seem to protect the creator if illegal images are created.

"Officer, my computer randomly generated that CP".

I don't think that excuse is going to work.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Its not because you can be compliant with the law but the platform or processor can still reject your content.

Of course, but if I am being compliant with the law, then regardless of what a payment processor would say, I am fullfilling my LEGAL requirement, right?

Originally Posted by pornlaw

I recently heard that to upload content to a certain platform, you need a current ID. Meaning, if the ID is old or expired even if the ID was current at the date of production (what the law requires) they will still reject the content.

Thats interesting... so if you have content that was shot 5 years ago, and the model's ID that you have on hand has expired, you would need to obtain it again or else the content would not be accepted. Is that right? If so, that is pretty good protection for the models, but is pretty bad for the producers.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

I don't see any difference between AI images and Photoshopped images.

Perhaps AI images, like paintings, are new works of art. Photoshopped images are edits of existing art?

Poor lawyers...!

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

Perhaps AI images, like paintings, are new works of art. Photoshopped images are edits of existing art?

Poor lawyers...!

The AI image is created by editing original images and combining them.
It's nothing more than automated photoshop.
You're just taking a buzzword (AI) and making it into something that is magic, instead
of expanded image editing.


Artist have been sued for their paintings and t-shirts.

Me :
can an artist be sued for making a painting of a person without consent?

ChatGPT :
The legality of creating a painting of a person without their consent can vary depending on several factors, including the jurisdiction, the context of the painting, and whether the painting is considered a form of protected expression or potentially an invasion of privacy or defamation.

In many jurisdictions, creating a painting of a person without their consent is generally legal if the painting is considered a work of art and not used for commercial purposes. This falls under the concept of freedom of expression and artistic freedom. However, if the painting is used for commercial purposes, such as selling prints or merchandise featuring the image of the person, it may infringe on the individual's right to control the commercial use of their likeness, which could lead to legal issues.

Additionally, if the painting portrays the person in a false or defamatory light, the individual depicted may have grounds to sue for defamation or invasion of privacy, depending on the laws in their jurisdiction.

[TBOgames]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Or what if a person uses AI to GENERATE an ID and a signed 2257 for a scene with real people in it.
LOL!
Good luck to the govt. keeping up with technology.

cointelegraph.com/news/ai-generated-fake-ids-pass-crypto-exchange-kyc-onlyfake