[arrosenberg]

Sharing a photo on Facebook doesn’t imply a public license for any pervert to use it for pornography. Don’t complain when that gets codified in law either — people like you are way too cavalier with other people’s livelihoods.

[a_wild_dandan]

People are too entitled in trying to own a look. Can I spread porn fakes of myself? What if I look identical to Taylor Swift? Do I lose my right to free expression?

[arrosenberg]

Blame Disney, not me. And I'd argue most individual people are interested in controlling what is done with their own visage more than anything. It's the same legal logic as revenge porn laws. If you are my enemy, all I have to do is find your sibling's Instagram account and I could make entire <yourlastname>hub website.

> What if I look identical to Taylor Swift? Do I lose my right to free expression?

Taylor Swift's corporate legal team would already do a pretty fine job of excising that right from you. No additional legislation needed.

[dragonwriter]

> Can I spread porn fakes of myself?

Yes.

> What if I look identical to Taylor Swift?

Yes, still.

Now, if you are trading commercially on the appearance similarity in a way which presents, either explicitly or implicitly on your images as Swift’s, then you open yourself up to right of publicity claims in some jurisdictions, and the same may be true of revenge porn laws in some jurisdiction, even without the context being commercial.

[a_wild_dandan]

If you genuinely believe that my kosher, not-Swift deep fakes would ever legally survive -- regardless of context/provenance claims -- then I have a bridge to sell you.