Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Post New Thread Reply

Register GFY Rules Calendar Mark Forums Read
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >
Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed.

 
Thread Tools
Old 09-13-2023, 12:12 AM   #1
TonyL
Confirmed User
 
TonyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: "A measure of a man is his post count". Write that down.
Posts: 900
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?
TonyL is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2023, 01:11 AM   #2
pornlaw
Confirmed User
 
pornlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,704
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.
__________________
Michael

www.AdultBizLaw.com
pornlaw is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2023, 03:41 AM   #3
CaptainHowdy
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Happy in the dark.
Posts: 90,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw View Post
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 . . .
CaptainHowdy is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2023, 05:44 AM   #4
DVTimes
Holedex.com
 
DVTimes's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 31,114
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.
__________________
My old and new pics I have shot: Holedex Blog
DVTimes is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2023, 05:47 AM   #5
DVTimes
Holedex.com
 
DVTimes's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 31,114
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.
__________________
My old and new pics I have shot: Holedex Blog
DVTimes is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2023, 09:45 AM   #6
TonyL
Confirmed User
 
TonyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: "A measure of a man is his post count". Write that down.
Posts: 900
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
TonyL is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2023, 02:03 PM   #7
blackmonsters
Yo Mamma!
 
blackmonsters's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 🌎🌅🌈🌇
Posts: 19,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyL View Post
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.

__________________
blackmonsters is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2023, 02:14 PM   #8
blackchariotnetwork
Confirmed User
 
blackchariotnetwork's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Nov 2021
Location: Gone.
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw View Post
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.
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.
blackchariotnetwork is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2023, 08:21 PM   #9
Kelli58
Confirmed User
 
Kelli58's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,876
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
__________________
All New Caption Queen Affiliate Program! ★ If you aren't making money with AI what the fuck are you doing man? 👉 Get AI to write your scene descriptions for you 👈
Kelli58 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2023, 09:53 PM   #10
pornlaw
Confirmed User
 
pornlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelli58 View Post
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."
__________________
Michael

www.AdultBizLaw.com
pornlaw is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2023, 10:35 PM   #11
Lightspeed-AI
Confirmed User
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2023
Posts: 171
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.
Lightspeed-AI is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2023, 03:14 PM   #12
TonyL
Confirmed User
 
TonyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: "A measure of a man is his post count". Write that down.
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightspeed-AI View Post
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.
TonyL is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2023, 02:32 PM   #13
DiamondTrio
Registered User
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2023
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightspeed-AI View Post
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.
This was super helpful, everyone had some really dope insight
__________________
Gahsh Henry - Owner/Operator of Diamond Trio ENT
DiamondTrio is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Post New Thread Reply
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >

Bookmarks

Tags
legal, laws, images, ai-generated, content, adult, set, precedent, received, generated, feedback, relation
Thread Tools



Advertising inquiries - marketing at gfy dot com

Contact Admin - Advertise - GFY Rules - Top

©2000-, AI Media Network Inc



Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000- Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.