[tshaddox]

> How do I know a video of unknown provenance contains me, not a dead ringer that gave consent?

> It's impossible to consistently enforce, presumptive, and effectively thought-policing a concept. In short: it's absurd.

I mean, come on. It’s fine to disapprove of the law, but this isn’t some uniquely difficult thing that the legal system couldn’t possibly handle. It’s certainly nowhere near the level of complexity and ambiguity of, for instance, criminal fraud law, where things like the intent of the accused and the “reasonable person” are routinely crucial elements.

[dragonwriter]

Actually it is arguably higher level of complexity, because while intent is not normally an element for right of publicity, it has been looked to along with effect to disambiguate which cases that aren’t simple image or voice likenesses (such as voice impersonations) are nevertheless covered.

But it is neither novel nor unique to AI.

[a_wild_dandan]

Across the internet spreads a noisy video. It's pornography with an absolute dead ringer celebrity face. There are no context clues -- physical SMT, celebrity references, video provenance, etc.

What do?

[tshaddox]

I mean, if you don’t know who is responsible, what do you ever do? What if you find a dead body but no clues about how they died? What’s uniquely tricky about this particular type of crime?

[a_wild_dandan]

There is no unique trickery here. In both cases, you do nothing -- don't charge presumed innocent people with "likeness" theft or with murder.