Members unicorn Posted Saturday at 08:13 PM Members Posted Saturday at 08:13 PM In today's issue of the Los Angeles Times, there was a notation that a cartoon was being pulled because its creator was arrested on felony charges. When I looked into it, I discovered he got arrested on child pornography charges. Apparently, there's a new law which took effect on 1/1/25 in California which makes AI child porn illegal, and the cartoonist got charged for violating that law. I'm not sure how I feel about that law, since I'm not sure who the "victim" would be in AI-generated porn. However, this should serve as a wake-up call to anyone who partakes in this habit: check your local laws. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/california/cartoonist-arrested-child-porn/3762634/ "A Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist with Bay Area ties has been arrested in Sacramento County on suspicion of child pornography. Darrin Bell, 49, a famed cartoonist who got his start at UC Berkeley, was arrested Wednesday and booked into the Sacramento County jail on possession of child porn, according to Internet Crimes Against Children detectives who were tipped off by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children... The arrest is the first by Sacramento Valley ICAC in which possession of computer generated/AI child pornography was charged against the suspect. A change in the law took effect with the new year making AI-generated child pornography a criminal offense." floridarob 1 Quote
caeron Posted Sunday at 06:51 AM Posted Sunday at 06:51 AM I get the sentiment, but this makes me leery. It feels like it's crossing the border into thought crimes. Quote
Members unicorn Posted Sunday at 07:13 AM Author Members Posted Sunday at 07:13 AM 19 minutes ago, caeron said: I get the sentiment, but this makes me leery. It feels like it's crossing the border into thought crimes. While child pornography is one of the most abhorrent crimes imaginable, using AI images, while highly distasteful, seems more nuanced, since it doesn't seem like anyone is being harmed. It will be interesting to see how the courts react. floridarob 1 Quote
Keithambrose Posted Sunday at 09:41 AM Posted Sunday at 09:41 AM 2 hours ago, unicorn said: While child pornography is one of the most abhorrent crimes imaginable, using AI images, while highly distasteful, seems more nuanced, since it doesn't seem like anyone is being harmed. It will be interesting to see how the courts react. As I mentioned in a previous post, AI generated child porn is also illegal in the UK. It counts as an obscene image of a child. Quote
Members unicorn Posted Monday at 01:20 AM Author Members Posted Monday at 01:20 AM 15 hours ago, Keithambrose said: As I mentioned in a previous post, AI generated child porn is also illegal in the UK. It counts as an obscene image of a child. I wonder how they determine the "age" of the subject of an AI image. I can think of a poster who posts AI images I consider of questionable taste. However, I don't know how one could "prove" the "age" of an image in such cases. I suspect that Bell's case will be well-publicized, and probably be examined by appellate courts. I suppose that if they can show that the images are morphed images of multiple minors, then that should pass muster and definitely be illegal. If no images of minors are used, I wonder if that could still be considered illegal. How long has this been illegal in the UK, and what have the courts said on this subject? Quote
Travelingguy Posted Monday at 04:12 AM Posted Monday at 04:12 AM AI generated images can be of real people doing things that they did not in fact do. I think that we are going to see more and more legislation on this. As for nobody being hurt, I am not at all sure of that. Also the consumers of this materiel would be among the most likely people in our society to have abused a child. Quote
Keithambrose Posted Monday at 03:57 PM Posted Monday at 03:57 PM 14 hours ago, unicorn said: I wonder how they determine the "age" of the subject of an AI image. I can think of a poster who posts AI images I consider of questionable taste. However, I don't know how one could "prove" the "age" of an image in such cases. I suspect that Bell's case will be well-publicized, and probably be examined by appellate courts. I suppose that if they can show that the images are morphed images of multiple minors, then that should pass muster and definitely be illegal. If no images of minors are used, I wonder if that could still be considered illegal. How long has this been illegal in the UK, and what have the courts said on this subject? BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk Bolton man faces jail over AI-generated child abuse images Don't think the case has come to trial. Quote
Members unicorn Posted Monday at 08:01 PM Author Members Posted Monday at 08:01 PM This looks like legally untested waters, then. Interesting. Quote
