The Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Images Amendment Act • amendment(s) adopted at Committee Stage
Chamber
manitoba
Stage
Introduced
This Manitoba bill strengthens protections against non-consensual sharing of intimate images, including threats to share and AI-generated fake images.
Key Changes
- Expands the definition of intimate images to include 'nearly nude' images and images where the person is not identifiable
- Includes AI-generated or digitally manipulated fake intimate images in the law's coverage
- Creates a new civil tort (legal wrong) for threatening to distribute an intimate image, even if no image is actually shared
- Gives courts the power to order defendants, internet platforms, and search engines to remove or de-index intimate images
- Clarifies that privacy rights in intimate images survive the death of the person depicted
- Requires courts to consider the victim's own views before ordering or revoking a publication ban in related court cases
Gotchas
- Internet intermediaries (platforms) are protected from liability if they take 'reasonable steps' to address unlawful image sharing, but the bill does not define what 'reasonable steps' means, leaving this open to interpretation
- Courts can order internet platforms and search engines to remove or de-index images, but enforcement against platforms operating outside Manitoba or Canada may be practically difficult
- The new threat-based tort means legal action can be taken before any image is actually distributed, which is a significant expansion of when someone can sue
- The bill clarifies that being a public figure alone is not sufficient justification for sharing intimate images, but does not fully define what other factors might constitute public interest
- The inclusion of non-identifiable persons in the definition of personal intimate images means privacy protections apply even when the subject cannot be recognized in the image
Who's Affected
- Victims of non-consensual intimate image sharing or threats
- People depicted in AI-generated or digitally altered fake intimate images
- Internet platforms and search engines hosting such content
- Defendants in civil lawsuits related to intimate image distribution or threats
- Estates of deceased individuals whose intimate images may be shared
Vibes
0 responses
Gotchas
- Internet intermediaries (platforms) are protected from liability if they take 'reasonable steps' to address unlawful image sharing, but the bill does not define what 'reasonable steps' means, leaving this open to interpretation
- Courts can order internet platforms and search engines to remove or de-index images, but enforcement against platforms operating outside Manitoba or Canada may be practically difficult
- The new threat-based tort means legal action can be taken before any image is actually distributed, which is a significant expansion of when someone can sue
- The bill clarifies that being a public figure alone is not sufficient justification for sharing intimate images, but does not fully define what other factors might constitute public interest
- The inclusion of non-identifiable persons in the definition of personal intimate images means privacy protections apply even when the subject cannot be recognized in the image
Summary
This bill amends Manitoba's existing law on non-consensual distribution of intimate images (sometimes called 'revenge porn'). It expands the definition of what counts as an intimate image to include images where the person is 'nearly nude' or not even identifiable, and also covers AI-generated or digitally altered fake images that realistically depict someone in a sexual or nude way. It also adds live broadcasts and live streams to the definition of a visual recording. A major new addition is making it a civil wrong (called a 'tort') to simply threaten to share someone's intimate image — not just actually sharing it. This means a victim can sue someone who threatens to distribute their image, even if the image was never actually shared. Courts are also given stronger tools to order the removal of images from online platforms and search engines. The bill also clarifies that a person's privacy rights in an intimate image do not disappear after they die, and that being a public figure does not automatically make sharing their intimate image in the public interest. Internet platforms have limited liability if they take reasonable steps to address unlawful image sharing on their services.
Automatically generated from bill text using Claude
Vibes
0 responses