Ai Generated Images & 2257 Laws
 

Has anyone received any legal feedback concerning the 2257 laws in relation to Ai-generated images and adult content? Has any legal precedent been set?

There's really no published legal opinions (case law) on 2257.

Only 2 people have been prosecuted for a 2257 violation.

Joe Francis of Girls Gone Wild and Ira Isaacs. The 2257 case against Isaacs was dropped by the government. And Francis pled guilty.

The only case that has gone up on appeal about 2257 have been the challenges to the law by FSC. And obviously that was before AI so it was never discussed.

There you go . . .

It will be down to the people who make the real porn laws and that is the credit card firms.

All they have to say is sites using such content will not get credit card backing because the images may have been built using pics of people who did not consent or even not old enough.

I suspect at some point AI porn will not be allowed.

2257 is presumably to cover peoples backs and to prove you are legit as much as possible.

A lot of it is presumably because of Traci Lords.

So I guess just slap up a standard 2257 custodian of records notice and hope no one ever calls your bluff.. I guess you could always Ai generate a photo ID and signature for the release form lmao

Hell yeah! Why commit small crime when you can beef it up with document fraud.

:1orglaugh

Joe Francis being himself really brought it on himself.

However as good as AI is getting, there should be a warning for children? it's getting pretty damn good lol.

Well this makes me think about Max Hardcore's case and the age-old question, if she's not real, is it illegal?

https://adultindustry.news/if-its-no...ality-in-porn/

2257 is to prove the person in the video/photo is over 18. If the girl isn't real, she doesn't have an id.

So it wouldn't really fall under those laws. So that leads you down the obscenity rabbit hole.

is a fake girl obscene? Under the legal definition of "obscene" that is.


But it's a good question and I for one hope not the be the test case to find out :P

The US Supreme Court has already touched on the subject of virtual child porn in 2002 under 2256... Free Speech Coalition filed a challenge to the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/00-795

The Court struck down the law but left open the possibility that they would uphold a more narrowly tailored law in the future.

"Finally, the Government says that the possibility of producing images by using computer imaging makes it very difficult for it to prosecute those who produce pornography by using real children. Experts, we are told, may have difficulty in saying whether the pictures were made by using real children or by using computer imaging. The necessary solution, the argument runs, is to prohibit both kinds of images. The argument, in essence, is that protected speech may be banned as a means to ban unprotected speech. This analysis turns the First Amendment upside down."

Every photo on deepfake.com first must pass the smell test. If it makes me uncomfortable I delete it. But as far as IDs, my solution is to keep every detail about how every image was generated. If there is ever a question, I can easily demonstrate how it was made by recreating it from scratch. I have more info about each ai image than I have about my real photos. Digital DNA > 2257

Watermarking/labeling every image as ai generated is also a good idea.

Thanks Steve nice to see you at the forefront of Ai.

This was super helpful, everyone had some really dope insight