• KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    sort of. There are arguments that private ownership of these videos is also weird and shitty, however i think impersonation and identity theft are going to the two most broadly applicable instances of relevant law here. Otherwise i can see issues cropping up.

    Other people do not have any inherent rights to your likeness, you should not simply be able to pretend to be someone else. That’s considered identity theft/fraud when we do it with legally identifying papers, it’s a similar case here i think.

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      But the thing is it’s not a relevant law here at all as nothing is being distributed and no one is being harmed. Would you say the same thing if AI is not involved? Sure it can be creepy and weird and whatnot but it’s not inhertly harmful or at least it’s not obvious how it would be.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        the only perceivable reason to create these videos is either for private consumption, in which case, who gives a fuck. Or for public distribution, otherwise you wouldn’t create them. And you’d have to be a bit of a weird breed to create AI porn of specific people for private consumption.

        If AI isn’t involved, the same general principles would apply, except it might include more people now.