AI images - does this make any difference to charges/outcome?
Notifications OFF
Hi there
I've tried to search for posts from others about this but the search function pulls up every word that contains the letters AI (chair, fair etc) so it's not been helpful.
In my situation, my person was initially found to have mostly AI IIOC, with one real but commercial image. All are likely Cat C. There's a chance more evidence may be found by forensics but that's the current situation.
I'd be interested in hearing if anyone else's situation involved AI images and whether this affected charges or outcome differently? (As opposed to real images)
Thank you
I've tried to search for posts from others about this but the search function pulls up every word that contains the letters AI (chair, fair etc) so it's not been helpful.
In my situation, my person was initially found to have mostly AI IIOC, with one real but commercial image. All are likely Cat C. There's a chance more evidence may be found by forensics but that's the current situation.
I'd be interested in hearing if anyone else's situation involved AI images and whether this affected charges or outcome differently? (As opposed to real images)
Thank you
We were told that AI images were treated the same as 'real' images - in the same way that a police decoy is treated the same as real child for sentencing purposes.
In our case the 2 image charges were worded so it covered both AI (psuedo) images and real images.
In our case the 2 image charges were worded so it covered both AI (psuedo) images and real images.
We are facing charges due to images received through an unwanted telegram group and unfirtunately ai also. Person believes they were autogenerated by the app when messing about with other questionable stuff but it generated onto every face already in the app as previews or suggestions.
This has destroyed us this past year. If you wanted to talk to any one feel free to message me. It's not easy <3
This has destroyed us this past year. If you wanted to talk to any one feel free to message me. It's not easy <3
The law is quite clear that AI is the same as pseudo images, which used to be made mainly with photoshop in the past.
The cases that have gone to court so far have focused mainly on distribution and selling though. The judges are very keen to punish people who sell AI images for money.
But if it is possession only, then a lot of the arguments for punishment fall apart. AI images of a child that does not exist and can never have existed, do not have a victim, as opposed to putting the face of a real child on an adults body, which does have a victim. The law as currently written, cannot distinguish between these two things.
However, because possession of real iioc usually results in a non custodial sentence these days, the outcome will probably be the same as for real iioc, even if the harm to real children is totally different.
The cases that have gone to court so far have focused mainly on distribution and selling though. The judges are very keen to punish people who sell AI images for money.
But if it is possession only, then a lot of the arguments for punishment fall apart. AI images of a child that does not exist and can never have existed, do not have a victim, as opposed to putting the face of a real child on an adults body, which does have a victim. The law as currently written, cannot distinguish between these two things.
However, because possession of real iioc usually results in a non custodial sentence these days, the outcome will probably be the same as for real iioc, even if the harm to real children is totally different.