Without dogging too far, it seems like the law is broadly worded enough to open the door for all sorts of SLAPP-type takedowns, a bit like how DMCA is weaponized against people that don’t have armies of lawyers.
Also, the other source (not the bill itself, mind you, so might be wrong) says “digitally generated”, not “AI generated”, which could be stretched to apply to any image manipulation, like cropping.
Then of course there’s the question of reliably differentiating between AI and non-AI. Which basically means whoever has the biggest legal cannon to fire at the other guy wins.
Without dogging too far, it seems like the law is broadly worded enough to open the door for all sorts of SLAPP-type takedowns, a bit like how DMCA is weaponized against people that don’t have armies of lawyers.
Also, the other source (not the bill itself, mind you, so might be wrong) says “digitally generated”, not “AI generated”, which could be stretched to apply to any image manipulation, like cropping.
Then of course there’s the question of reliably differentiating between AI and non-AI. Which basically means whoever has the biggest legal cannon to fire at the other guy wins.
I tried checking the actual bill and it seems you are correct and its target is not only limited to AI generated fakes but everything digital.
I have now found a summary of the EFF about the NO FAKES act and I’m most likely misunderstanding the breadth of that bill :
https://www.eff.org/files/2024/09/12/2024.11_no_fakes_one_pager.pdf
I almost blindly trust the EFF on these types of questions, they have been an invaluable ressource even in Europe to protect citizens.
I suppose the European approach is probably safer here since it doesn’t limit speech but mandates transparency on AI fakes.