[john-h-k]

> knowingly uses or infringes upon the use of and publishes ... an individual’s name, photograph ... without the individual’s prior consent ... and being reckless as to whether or not harm is caused to, the other person.

> [harm occurs when someone] seriously interferes with the other person’s peace and privacy or causes alarm or distress to the other person

This seems very widely worded. A newspaper publishing the name/image of a suspected criminal is definitely "publishing an individuals name, photograph", without their consent, and can quite clearly cause alarm or distress.

Without some exemption clauses added, this bill seems to basically ban using anyone's name/photograph/likeness in ANY context that criticises them; it will almost certainly conflict with ECHR's Article 10 on freedom of expression. However(!!) with a few exemptions it can be made much better. Even tying it to AI generated photos/voice/etc would help - most _genuine_ criticism and reporting can go without the use of AI, but a lot of the intentional harm and sexual harassment did not occur before AI. If they don't want to do that, adding some form of "exemption if the information was used in a non-libellous context" could also work.

[allturtles]

AFAICT this is the actual bill: https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2025/11/eng/in...

Your selective quoting is extremely misleading. The first section about publishing a name/photograph only applies in the context of "for purposes of advertising products, events, political activities, merchandise, goods, or services or for purposes of fundraising, solicitation of donations, purchases of products, merchandise, goods, or services or to influence elections or referenda." i.e. it's illegal to pretend someone is endorsing something they are not.

[john-h-k]

Sorry, the example I had in mind was a politician and I don't know why I forgot to add that to the comment, else I'd edit it in.

The point is that "to influence elections or referenda" is incredibly vague! Almost any reporting on a person involved in the election, or even related to it (reporting on someone who's group looking bad helps a party) can be construed as "influencing an election"

[pessimizer]

But the second paragraph doesn't have any of those specifics. It's just any algorithm (an actual ban on forbidden math), software, tool, technology, service, or device.

[roryirvine]

...when the primary purpose of that algorithm, software, tool, technology, service, or device is to produce an individual’s photograph, voice, or likeness i) without the individual’s prior consent [...] ii) with intent to cause harm [...]

you need to read it together with the two sub-clauses, which make it much more selective (and a lot more reasonable!)

[sollewitt]

Your snipping is making it look broader than it is: you can’t misrepresent someone as being supportive of your product or cause, and you can’t distribute software that makes, or make yourself, likenesses of other people without their prior consent.

It doesn’t constrain what you do in contexts other than where you use someone’s likeness to misrepresent their position.

The harms are restricted to the scope above.

[john-h-k]

"or to influence elections or referenda" has quite a wide scope and was what concerned me. Publishing a political in a negative light absolutely could influence an election! But yes I should have included that part, not good by me, sorry.

[pessimizer]

Your second sentence directly contradicts your first sentence, and the substance of your post is only two sentences.

[amiga386]

So if I draw a caricature of a politician in Illustrator, then Adobe goes to prison?

What if I draw a caricature of my own friends, in Illustrator, without first getting their consent? Does Adobe go to prison?

What if I captioned my illustration with my friend saying "It's my round!" (which is misrepresenting their position because it's never their bloody round), would Adobe go to prison then?

[amiga386]

Having looked up the text, I can now answer my own questions.

1. As "the production of an individual’s photograph, voice, or likeness" is not Illustrator's "primary purpose or function", Adobe are off the hook. So is anyone else if they argue that the "primary purpose or function" is not the production of an individual's photograph, voice, or likeness. So if Grok can be prompted to produce any image, including porn of individuals, provided it's not the primary purpose of Grok, they're untouchable.

2. Even if the bill weren't worded that way, a legal person in Ireland allows for corporate personhood (https://legalguide.ie/corporate-identity/#separate-legal-per...), so Adobe Corporation, as the legal person who "distributes, transmits, or otherwise makes available an algorithm, software, tool, or other technology, service, or device" (Illustrator) would not be subject to "imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years", but it would be subject to "a fine" (maximum amount not specified)

3. Misrepresenting someone or not is irrelevant. The offense is when you either use the depicted person without their consent (regardless of how you represent them) or you intend to harm them (or recklessly don't consider the harm you might cause them), whether you have their consent or not. Harm specifically is {interfering "with the other person’s peace and privacy" or causing "alarm or distress" to them} _AND_ "a reasonable person would realise" that. It would be pretty difficult for a reasonable person (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person) to think misrepresenting a politician would cause them "alarm or distress" or interfere with their "peace and privacy", so you'd probably be fine producing images of politician XYZ saying they hate freedom, want to take your guns away, eat babies, etc., as they get that day-in, day-out and it hasn't stopped them yet.

[kelseyfrog]

No, there is currently no method to imprison Adobe nor any other company.

[Gormo]

> Your snipping is making it look broader than it is: you can’t misrepresent someone as being supportive of your product or cause, and you can’t distribute software that makes, or make yourself, likenesses of other people without their prior consent.

This sounds like it would effectively ban photography in public places. Or at least ban the manufacture/sale of cameras or software that takes photos.

[sallveburrpi]

> A newspaper publishing the name/image of a suspected criminal is definitely "publishing an individuals name, photograph", without their consent, and can quite clearly cause alarm or distress.

Cherrypicking your example: Newspapers shouldn’t publish names or images of suspects, so to me this specific example would be a very good thing. Not sure (IANAL) but I think in my country this is illegal already

Otherwise I agree that it’s very ambitious wording

[Amezarak]

> Cherrypicking your example: Newspapers shouldn’t publish names or images of suspects, so to me this specific example would be a very good thing. Not sure (IANAL) but I think in my country this is illegal already

Why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't the government have to publicize the names and identities of people they arrest so we know they're not doing so illegitimately?

[orwin]

Publishing a name and publishing a likeness is very different.

Especially if the person arrested is accused of immoral acts. In my country we have a very known story from 25 years ago where 18 persons were accused of being pedocriminals. Their faces blasted everywhere, on first page of most journals, on the TV... It turns out 13 of them weren't guilty at all. Issues with psychological pressure on the children and a lot of mistakes made life hell for the accused and ultimately innocent, people, most of them lost part of their life because of that.

[Sparkle-san]

It's definitely a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Lots of people have had their reputations ruined by accusations that turned out to be false but people made judgements based on the initial report and then moved on with their life carrying it as fact.

[pjc50]

Publishing the name of someone arrested and then later released without charge could constitute harm to them, even if you make it theoretically illegal to discriminate against them on that basis.

The US use of mugshots is exploitative.

[Amezarak]

Arresting someone without that being widely reported has historically resulted in substantial harm - it's called "disappearing" someone.

[ryoshoe]

The news typically reports arrests based on information provided by a government, but if people are being disappeared by the government you can't really rely on the truth of that info

[wccrawford]

I think there's a difference between the government doing it and the newspaper.

The newspaper can cherry pick who they post about, and spin it however they want. The government should be posting all of them in the same way, with just the facts.

[idiotsecant]

Who's talking about governments? The post you responded to sure never brought it up.

[ninalanyon]

It' specifically illegal in some jurisdictions.

[enragedcacti]

Any time you are reading a law, especially one from another jurisdiction, you have to be very careful to consider that there may be terms with a legal or common law definition that you don't understand. In this case, "reckless" seems to be a well defined term with a fair amount of case law behind it. To my untrained eye it seems like a newspaper would be well within their rights to publish harmful information as long as they avoid "a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk".

https://www.studocu.com/en-ie/document/university-college-du...

[orwin]

A newspaper publishing the name/image of a suspected criminal is definitely "publishing an individuals name, photograph", without their consent, and can quite clearly cause alarm or distress

If the suspected criminal isn't a public figure, it's a good thing, isn't it?

[ninalanyon]

In some European countries it's against the law to publish details of people who are merely accused.

[JohnMakin]

What if they are not guilty?

[pjc50]

If you've published it in a newspaper, now they're a public figure!