this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
280 points (97.9% liked)

World News

39019 readers
2236 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Hugh Nelson, 27, from Bolton, jailed after transforming normal pictures of children into sexual abuse imagery

A man who used AI to create child abuse images using photographs of real children has been sentenced to 18 years in prison.

In the first prosecution of its kind in the UK, Hugh Nelson, 27, from Bolton, was convicted of 16 child sexual abuse offences in August, after an investigation by Greater Manchester police (GMP).

Nelson had used Daz 3D, a computer programme with an AI function, to transform “normal” images of children into sexual abuse imagery, Greater Manchester police said. In some cases, paedophiles had commissioned the images, supplying photographs of children with whom they had contact in real life.

He was also found guilty of encouraging other offenders to commit rape.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I think this was a crime because he modified images of actual kids. If the images were 100% AI (not of real people) I'm not sure on what basis that would be considered a crime, no more than a handmade drawing of a nude minor drawn from imagination.

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Any sexual representation of a child is illegal in the UK whether it looks real or not. In fact I believe it doesn't need to even be a child, it's a illegal if a reasonable person would believe it was depicting a child. This came up when adults who were into age play got into trouble distributing their images because it looked convincingly underage.

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 28 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Wait so even if the subjects are adults in costume its illegal? Fuck man, school uniforms is a whole genre of porn.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago

It's not about reducing harm to children, it's about moral superiority.

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Relevant part of Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (UK)

Section 65 (regarding what "child" means in the context of indecent images)

(6)Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if—

(a)the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or

(b)the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.

(end quote)

In other words, an image can be treated as an indecent image of a child if the "impression conveyed" is that the person is under 18, even if that person has older "physical characteristics".

This legislation is more directed at non photographic imagery (so hentai / CGI etc) and the reference to physical characteristics is apparently a reference to a large breasts or "1000 year old vampire teeth" not being viable as an excuse that the image doesn't give the impression of a child.

I can't recall specifically what legislation was used regarding the age play couple I referenced. I can't find a specific law that says it's wrong for a photograph of an adult to appear underage. So it may just be that they were reported to police because they shared their images online without context. I don't know if they were subsequently prosecuted.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 17 points 2 weeks ago

And I suppose we can rely on the courts to know sexual when they see it, so people don't get in trouble for taking pictures of cherubs at the Louvre.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

Thanks for clarifying, I didn't know that. Seems like a bit of an overreach to me, but I suppose in this particular case it's best to err on the side of caution.

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Ah now it makes sense.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

I don't really think anything is 100% AI. I also don't really believe in the concept of thought being a crime and extend personally kept data to that realm.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

In the US federally you might be able to get away with creating the images for yourself if they are 100% fictional, but the guy also was doing commission work. The moment you start transmitting the images (and selling would involve that) it becomes very very illegal.