Post #3973193

2026-07-21 00:10 UTC

RE: https://scicomm.xyz/@dantheclamman/116954518144682511 We’re going to need some legal word smithing on the order of the #GPL and the #CreativeCommons licenses to make a false statement an offence in as many ways and jurisdictions as possible (any ideas, #lawFedi folks?), some #EXIF and #ID3v2 and #PNG and comparable metadata tags for carrying legal statements attesting to non-use of media synthesis (mislabelled as #genAI by GPT vendors and NPU/TPU manufacturers), some apps to interview and educate the user about media provenance and add those tags iff applicable, and some #Fediverse and web browser add-ons to filter out media lacking them unless verifiably produced before a given date.

Replies (1)

@karlauerbach@sfba.social 2026-07-21 00:25

@deFractal@infosec.exchange I am thinking that such legal language could be really difficult. My sense is that we would want to allow certain image manipulations - such as color balance or dust removal. (My own skills at color balance are below abysmal, so I look at tools that do that as wonderfully assistive forms of magic.) Could cropping, creative lighting, or even compositional posing of a photo be considered improperly manipulative? Also, I saw someone mention that because many animals see a different range of color/frequencies than we humans do that image processing that constrains or changes non-human visible colors might be either "interesting", "objectionable", or "a new way to do steganography.

Open ##3974525