Felony for realistic nudeification images

Summary#

HF-5157 would create a new crime in Minnesota Statutes; it does not amend a named existing Act. It would make intentional creation or dissemination of certain realistic, nonconsensual “nudification images” a felony. Its stated aim is to prohibit that conduct; the bill is at introduction and first reading, so it is not law and may not take effect.

  • The crime would apply when a person knows or reasonably should know the depicted person did not consent to the creation or dissemination, and that person is identifiable from the image or personal information shown with it.
  • “Nudification” means altering or generating an image to show an intimate part not shown in the original, realistically enough that a reasonable person would believe it belongs to the identifiable person. The bill’s image definition also includes images showing that person in a sexual act.
  • The title mentions possession, but the operative crime covers creating or disseminating images—not mere possession.
  • The basic maximum penalty would be five years in prison, a $10,000 fine, or both. Listed aggravating factors, such as intent to profit or harass, could raise the maximum to ten years, a $20,000 fine, or both.
  • The bill lists exceptions for specified purposes, including criminal investigations, reporting unlawful conduct, treatment, certain commercial settings, public-interest matters, research, education, and legal proceedings. It also shields named communications and internet service providers from criminal liability for content supplied by another person.

What it means for you#

  • People who create or share images: If the bill became law, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the lack of consent could lead to felony charges when the depicted person is identifiable. Dissemination includes distribution to someone other than the depicted person or publication through a publicly available medium.
  • People depicted: The bill would create a criminal prohibition, but it does not set out a process for requesting image removal or establish a civil claim for damages.
  • People and organizations using images for listed purposes: The exceptions apply only under their stated conditions. For example, research or educational use must clearly identify the image as a nudification image, and the person must act in good faith to minimize further dissemination.
  • Online and communications providers: The bill would bar criminal liability under this section for content another person provides. It would not make mere possession a crime under this section.

Money#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill provides no cost estimate, appropriation, or new staffing requirement.
  • It would require the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, as soon as practicable, to assign an offense severity level.
  • It sets maximum fines but gives no estimate of fines collected or enforcement costs.

What is unclear#

  • The supplied materials do not include the existing statutes referenced for definitions, so their current wording and how this bill would fit with existing law could not be verified.
  • The bill does not define “identifiable” or set out how courts should assess whether an image is realistic enough to meet the definition.
  • It does not establish investigation, charging, image-removal, or reporting procedures.
  • It is unclear how the exceptions would apply in specific cases, including what counts as a “matter of public interest” or a “commercial setting.”
  • The bill’s title refers to possession, but its operative prohibition does not make possession alone an offense.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to address realistic manipulated images that depict identifiable people in intimate or sexual situations without their consent.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that criminal penalties could recognize the harm of making or spreading such images, even when the intimate content was fabricated.
  • The higher maximum penalties for listed aggravating factors could distinguish more serious conduct, such as creating images to harass or profit.
  • The listed exceptions preserve specified uses, such as reporting unlawful conduct and protected medical treatment.

Case against#

  • One concern is that key terms, including “identifiable,” are not defined in the bill, leaving important questions for later interpretation.
  • The bill creates felony penalties but does not specify procedures for deciding when an exception applies.
  • The title could give readers the impression that possession alone is prohibited, although the operative crime covers creation and dissemination.
  • It is unclear how the new offense would interact with existing laws or what resources enforcement and the required sentencing-guideline work would need.