[jokowueu]

Generally there is a distinction between deepfaking and AI generated or am I mistaken here ?

Is there a preferred nomenclature ?

[basisword]

Deepfake utilises AI, no? Either way I feel like in the context of a national news article AI is being used in a colloquial sense.

[PeterisP]

From the AI industry perspective, I'd call it "deepfake" if it's generated as the original deepfake method did, by taking a real image or video and replacing only the face, and "AI generated" if the whole image was generated.

But perhaps this is a technical distinction that will go away soon, or perhaps has already disappeared in colloquial usage.

[zmgsabst]

I always used it literally:

“Deepfake”: a fake generated by a DNN, or tool chain comprised primarily of such.

[PeterisP]

While from technical perspective there are multiple quite different methods to create images, I don't think that there is (or should be, or can be) a clear boundary for social and legal purposes.

It's clear that are a bunch of generated fake images with a face that looks like the impersonated victims and a naked body. Does it matter if that face was copy-pasted from an existing photo of that person or manipulated by a skilled artist to look like that person or AI-generated to look that person? And with respect to the impersonated victims, does it matter if the naked body came from a real photo of someone else, or was drawn by a skilled artist, or was generated by AI?

[zingababba]

I agree intent remains the same in either case. In this case the intent is desiring to create a nude likeness of an individual using some degree of original material so that the final creation appears indistinguishable from a genuine product.

In terms of law the technical solution used to accomplish the likeness should not be relevant.