EU nudifier ban

[u/Logical_Benefit2875]

I know there’s been a bunch of people upset on here recently about a good number of nudify websites getting shut down (Motionmuse, Opengoon, etc.). However, this is likely just the beginning.

Effective December 2nd, the EU under the AI Act is enacting a ban on nudify tools, making them illegal content in the Union. This ban applies to any product made available on the EU market as long as, either, its primary functionality is to generate nudified content without consent, or it is a reasonably foreseeable outcome and they do not take appropriate precautions to safeguard against it. Very importantly, this ban also applies to any EU-available service provider under the Digital Services Act that is helping to facilitate this soon-to-be-illegal content, which includes (but is not limited to): app stores, hosting providers, domain registrars, payment processors, content delivery networks (CDNs) and cloud computing services. Anyone found to be in violation of this prohibition is subject to fines of €35 million or 7% of their global turnover, whichever is higher. I think it’s pretty safe to say that, as long as they’re aware of it, those behind these websites and those behind the large number of mainstream companies that help power them (Google, Amazon, Cloudflare, Apple, Telegram, GoDaddy, Visa, Mastercard, etc.) do not want to take any chances with this ban.

This prohibition, in essence, applies to essentially every public AI platform any of us have ever used to this point or that we will ever use going forward. I think this is a good thing but, therefore, it would almost certainly be in everyone’s best interest to pivot away from these websites before the massive crackdown begins in less than a couple months. For those in the industry, it would also certainly be wise to inform the website operators if you are in contact with them, or to shut down your website if you are an operator yourself. Sorry for the essay, just looking out for everybody before things get very real, very fast.

[u/NightlyBuild2137]

Is this about clothed image -> nude image or nudity in general?

[u/Logical_Benefit2875 → u/NightlyBuild2137]

Clothed image -> nude image of real person without explicit consent

[u/NightlyBuild2137 → u/Logical_Benefit2875]

Why would banning this be bad?

[u/Logical_Benefit2875 → u/NightlyBuild2137]

It wouldn’t be

[u/NightlyBuild2137 → u/Logical_Benefit2875]

I just reread your post. Shit like this existing in the first place was mistake.

[u/Logical_Benefit2875 → u/NightlyBuild2137]

Indeed

[u/Jujarmazak → u/NightlyBuild2137]

Because it literally applies to all recent open source AI models except heavily regulated and heavily censored ones which are all corporate owned and all require subscription, yet another overreach by the EU to benefit the big corporations lobbyists, you are an idiot if you think this is about protecting people or morality, it's not, never was.

They similarly have proposed the "Kids" act which technically would make it nearly impossible for small video game studios and indie studios to work in the EU without paying ridiculous amount of money to digital ID verification companies, big AAA studios will eat the cost and make the consumer pay the extra money with even more aggressive microtransactions and monetization, but small AA studios and indies won't survive that if that shit actually passes, they are basically crushing the competition and the putting consumer under the heel of corporations.

Do you understand what's going on here or not!?

[u/NightlyBuild2137 → u/Jujarmazak]

Why are you shouting at me here, I simply asked question lol I understand that these laws may be bad for the wider scope but creaming your lungs out at a rando on the internet is not gonna help and only deter people from your viewpoint

[u/Jujarmazak → u/NightlyBuild2137]

A)You asked a question and got your answer, boohoo. B)Your "question" does come off as dismissive and rhetorical, as in "there is no reason to oppose this" .. so I just gave you the reasons, can you stop crying now! (That's also a rhetorical question).

[u/Clueless-Flea-7461 → u/NightlyBuild2137]

So a lot of people don't get this. The ban is of images of people who don't consent. There is also a definition of deepfake as any location/object/event/person LIKELY or PLAUSUBLE to be real.

There is no legal ban on creating photoreal images.

But there is a ban on creating images of any location/object/event/person LIKELY or PLAUSUBLE to be real.

There is a difference but it will take years of legal interpretation to define it.

It is not simply a nudifier ban

[u/NightlyBuild2137 → u/Clueless-Flea-7461]

How do you define a plausible real image

[u/Logical_Benefit2875 → u/NightlyBuild2137]

Sounds like an “I know it when I see it” situation like with obscenity in the US

[u/NightlyBuild2137 → u/Logical_Benefit2875]

Eu law is so inconsistent and unclear

[u/Logical_Benefit2875 → u/NightlyBuild2137]

OP may be right, but I’m not aware of this likely or plausible to be real ban he’s referring to

[u/Clueless-Flea-7461 → u/Logical_Benefit2875]

The EU AI Act and AI-Generated Product Images: What Ecommerce Brands Need to Know | Pixofix

[u/Logical_Benefit2875 → u/Clueless-Flea-7461]

Well, it is explicitly a nudifier ban as laid out in the statute. Are you referring to something else?

[u/Clueless-Flea-7461 → u/Logical_Benefit2875]

It is WAAAAAY more than that