Crackdown on synthetic depictions of minors

Summary#

New York Senate Bill S-10696 would amend the Penal Law; the supplied material gives no separate short title. It would add certain AI- or digitally created depictions to the existing crime of promoting an obscene sexual performance by a child. The bill appears intended to cover qualifying depictions even when no actual child is depicted. It was introduced and referred to the Rules Committee; it is not law.

  • The bill defines an “obscene synthetic sexual performance” as a performance made through AI or other digital or computational means that realistically depicts someone who reasonably appears to be under 17 engaging in sexual conduct. The depicted child need not correspond to a real person.
  • A person who knows the character and content of such a performance and produces, directs or promotes it would commit the existing crime.
  • The bill makes that crime a class D felony. It does not create a separate offense or set out a specific sentence.
  • The bill says it would take effect immediately if enacted.

What it means for you#

  • People who produce, direct or promote performances: The bill would cover the specified synthetic performances if the person knows their character and content. The performance must also meet the bill’s definition, including that it is obscene.
  • People depicted: The definition does not require that the depicted child be a real person.
  • General public: The bill does not create a new public service, fee or benefit. The existing offense also covers obscene performances involving a child under 17, including certain performances created or altered by digitization. The full current law was not supplied separately, so I could not verify the complete existing rules.

Money#

No publicly available information about the bill’s cost is in the supplied material.

  • The bill does not set a fee or appropriate money.
  • It does not estimate any added enforcement or court costs.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not define “obscene,” “realistically depicts,” or “reasonably appears.” Those terms may affect which performances are covered.
  • The bill does not explain how the new definition interacts with the existing reference to digitization under another Penal Law section.
  • The supplied material does not include the full current Penal Law or the 2025 amendment cited in the bill, so the full effect of the changes against current law could not be checked.
  • The bill does not set out guidance, procedures or timelines for deciding whether a performance meets the definition.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that it extends the existing offense to realistic synthetic depictions even when no actual child was depicted.
  • The bill keeps the offense’s knowledge requirement: a person must know the character and content of the performance.
  • Adding the synthetic-performance definition could make clear that creating a depiction digitally does not, by itself, put it outside this offense.

Case against#

  • The definition could cover depictions with no real child involved, while the bill does not spell out how “realistically depicts” or “reasonably appears” would be applied.
  • The bill attaches a class D felony to conduct involving synthetic performances, but the supplied text does not set out a specific sentence or explain how cases would be distinguished.
  • The text does not explain how the new category fits with the existing digitization language, which could leave uncertainty about the law’s reach.