A person extremely resembling an actress or a voice actress, dressed in a revealing bathing suit or as a Playboy bunny. These types of photographs are published on Twitter and other social networks. But these are fake photographs, in fact, they are produced through artificial intelligence (AI) . For example, on the left is an AI-generated photo based on voice actress Kana Hanazawa in a swimsuit, on the right, a real photo of the artist.
Image-generating AIs have exploded in popularity since the summer of last year, being used to generate content for sale or simply for recreation. Among them seems to use the technology "LoRA (Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models)", which allows artificial intelligence to immediately learn the patterns of a certain character or real person, so users can use it to generate illustrations .
There are pages where collections of illustrations made through these media are sold, and it is always specified that " all illustrations are generated by an AI and are false, so any resemblance to a person in the real world is purely coincidental ."
.jpg)
ITmedia asked Taichi Kakinuma , an expert lawyer in the field of artificial intelligence, his opinion on the legal aspects of buying and selling fake photographs of these celebrities and the AI models that can generate them . The main problem is the legal definition of "advertising" in the case of actresses and so on. In Japan, there is no legal provision dedicated to advertising, but some judicial precedents recognize it. Currently it is defined as any act done with the objective of attracting consumers or customers to the person or place.
And he continued: « So, based on that, three specific patterns of infringement of publicity rights have been identified : a) The use of illustration as an object of independent appreciation ; b) The use of the illustration in a product in order to differentiate it in the market ; and ) The use of the illustration as part of the advertisement of a product ».
However, it also makes a quite relevant point clear: « The sale of an illustration that combines the face of a personality with a naked body is likely to be considered as “defamation”, as well as an infringement of the right of publicity » . So, regarding the sale of these illustrations, they are clearly a violation of subsection a), so they certainly are a violation of the right to publicity. The lawyer commented: " It is necessary to consider that the act of selling this content is a crime on many levels ."
Source: ITmedia
