[Joker_vD]

From the person who appears to be depicted on it. Not that different from an image being a picture painted by an artist from memory/imagination, honestly. In the end, it basically boils down to having the rights on your appearance.

[buro9]

Yes, but similarity is not uniquely owned... 2 people may have resemblance and one may have given consent. Does the other have a right to demand consent too?

Hypothetical example: A person who happens to look like Boris Johnson (PM of UK) consents to a nude depiction. Does the image require the consent of all other people who have resemblance to Boris Johnson, including Boris Johnson but also extending to people elsewhere on Earth that don't know him but definitely look like him?

If yes... then you have lost control of right on your appearance because now the rights are collectively owned by anyone with a resemblance.

[rlpb]

Identical twins might be another example. What happens if one twin wants to make money selling adult content, and the other twin does not consent?

[eru]

There are lot of look-alikes in the real world.

I wonder whether saying that you based your nude on Joe Smith who you got consent from, would count as a defense? Even if Joe Smith happens to look like some celebrity that you didn't get permission from.

[sierpinsky]

I think this should only work if you could reasonably be assumed to be unaware of the existence of any look-a-likes (including the celebrity) you don't have a permission from.

[eru]

I guess you could do something like Clean Room Design. But you'd need go be clever to get around a jury / judge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

[Dracophoenix]

You wouldn't even need to be clever. Use a bunch of stock photos mixed in with the target photo, use a Co-pilot-level GAN to "sort" the bodily features of this photo in a way that would suit your liking and - voila!- "It's an algorithmic choice. It can't be helped". That or anime-ification.

But none of this would be needed if people respected freedom of speech. No person should be obligated to abstain from composing the digital equivalent of a nude statue because it can resemble a living person. One shouldn't even be a need to ask what happens when satire and sexuality are policed. Anyone who has been reading the news over the past few decades would know the answer to that.

[eru]

Well, I guess legality would depend on intent?

[Dracophoenix]

Even if a "malicious" intent were relevant to the production or distribution of deepnudes being considered a crime (which I am convinced is not a crime under any circumstances), judges and lawmakers have historically shied away from arguments of intent in the past under the argument that it's too difficult and time consuming. Present laws regarding "revenge" porn , for example, are assessed under strict liability and don't require any proof of any actual revenge plot being involved. There was a case in Illinois [1] in which the defendant was trying to prove her ex-boyfriend's infidelity by distributing photos he had carelessly synchronized to her iCloud account. In doing so she was tried with distribution of non-consensual pornography without any consideration for intent. Her legal team appealed on 1st amendement grounds where the Illinois law did not apply strict scrutiny standard required for rulings that curtail free speech on the supposed basis of serving a compelling government interest. The appeals were eventually filed all the way to the Supreme Court but the case was not taken up.

If a deepnude ban were to happen, I don't expect the arguments and legal standards under which such a ban is judged to be any different. That's what I find troubling.

[1]https://www.cato.org/legal-briefs/austin-v-illinois