- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- legalnews
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- legalnews
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.
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.
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.
Wait so even if the subjects are adults in costume its illegal? Fuck man, school uniforms is a whole genre of porn.
It’s not about reducing harm to children, it’s about moral superiority.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
This stick figure is cumming. I’m the author, so I decide that.
Nice stick bro
deleted by creator
It’s word of God. That passes any doubt.
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.
Ah now it makes sense.
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.
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.