The bad advice this corrects

A specific, dangerous piece of reasoning has started circulating alongside this technology: that generating a sexual or intimate image of a real person using AI tools is somehow lower-stakes than a real photograph, because “nothing real happened” and no actual photograph of that person’s body was taken. That reasoning treats the absence of a camera as the absence of harm, which badly misreads what’s actually being done and to whom.

The DEZAIR standard

Creating or sharing a sexual or intimate image of a real, identifiable person without their explicit consent is a serious violation regardless of whether the image is a photograph, an edited photograph, or generated entirely by AI. The method of creation doesn’t change what the image does: it attaches a real person’s identity to sexual content they never agreed to be part of, and it can be created and distributed at a scale and speed that traditional non-consensual image sharing couldn’t match. Consent for this category of content is about a specific real person’s specific real agreement — it was never really about the camera.

Why this is the actual standard

The harm in non-consensual intimate imagery was never centered on the mechanical fact of a photograph existing — it’s centered on a person’s identity, likeness, and reputation being attached to sexual content against their will, often causing serious and lasting distress, reputational damage, and in some cases danger. AI generation doesn’t remove any of that; if anything, it removes a practical barrier that used to limit how this kind of harm could occur — no longer requiring an actual photograph to have existed in the first place — which is exactly why the same underlying standard needs to apply, not a weaker one calibrated to how the image was technically produced.

What’s consistent with the standard

  • Using AI image tools on your own likeness, or on fictional or non-identifiable subjects, with no real, identifiable person depicted without consent
  • Discussing this technology’s existence, its risks, and its legal and ethical dimensions, without producing or distributing violating content as part of that discussion
  • Supporting a partner, friend, or anyone else who discovers this has been done to them, including helping them understand what legal recourse may exist in many jurisdictions

What isn’t

  • Generating a sexual or intimate image of any real, identifiable person — a partner, an ex, a public figure, anyone — without their explicit, specific consent to that exact use
  • Sharing, forwarding, or storing such an image once discovered, even out of curiosity rather than malicious intent
  • Treating “I didn’t take a real photo” or “it’s obviously not really them” as a meaningful defense — the identity being attached to the content is the harm, regardless of the image’s technical origin or its ability to fool a viewer

Edge cases worth naming

A growing and separate category involves people using AI tools to generate purely fictional intimate content, or content depicting themselves and a consenting partner privately — that use case doesn’t raise the same consent violation this piece addresses, though couples using it together still benefit from the same storage-and-deletion conversation covered in Sharing Intimate Images: The Conversation to Have Before You Ever Send One, since AI-generated content can be copied, stored, and shared exactly as easily as a photograph once it exists. Discovering that this has happened to you or someone you know is a serious matter — in many jurisdictions, laws specifically addressing non-consensual intimate imagery have been extended to cover AI-generated content as well, and it’s worth seeking both emotional support and information on legal options rather than assuming nothing can be done because no real photograph was involved.

The standard

The technology used to create an image changes nothing about whose consent was required to create it — a real person’s likeness attached to sexual content without their agreement is the same violation whether a camera or a generator produced it.