A mother and her 14-year-old daughter are advocating for better protections for victims after AI-generated nude images of the teen and other female classmates were circulated at a high school in New Jersey.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, officials are investigating an incident involving a teenage boy who allegedly used artificial intelligence to create and distribute similar images of other students – also teen girls - that attend a high school in suburban Seattle, Washington.

The disturbing cases have put a spotlight yet again on explicit AI-generated material that overwhelmingly harms women and children and is booming online at an unprecedented rate. According to an analysis by independent researcher Genevieve Oh that was shared with The Associated Press, more than 143,000 new deepfake videos were posted online this year, which surpasses every other year combined.

  • Zachariah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Seems like a typical copyright issue. The copyright owner has a monopoly on the intellectual property, but there are (genuine reasons) fair use exceptions (for journalism, satire, academic, backup, etc.)

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Reminder that the stated reason for copyrights to exist say all, per the US Constitution, is “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

      Anything that occurs naturally falls outside the original rationale. We’ve experienced a huge expansion of the concept of intellectual property since then, but as far as I can tell there has never been a consensus on what purpose intellectual property rights are supposed to serve beyond the original conception.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Makes sense. If I do something worth taking a picture of that means I have zero rights to it since that is “natural”, but the person who took the photo has all the rights to it.

        Tell me this crap wasn’t written for and by the worst garbage publishers out there.