Study F: Legal challenges in tackling AI-generated CSAM across the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand : who is accountable according to the law? Konstantinos K. Gaitis, Chrystala Fakonti, Zoe Lonard, Mengyao Lu, Jessica Schidlow, James Stevenson, Deborah Fry
Material type:
ArticlePublication details: Childlight: Global Child Safety Institute, 2025Subject(s): Online resources:
In: Searchlight 2025 - Who benefits? Shining a light on the business of child sexual exploitation and abuse (pp. 50-59)Summary: This study is among the first to examine the regulatory context of five closely inter-connected countries (UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) in terms of accountability around child sexual abuse material (CSAM) created via generative
artificial intelligence (gen-AI). The findings of our legislative review have helped us identify the key strengths as well as weaknesses of the legislative contexts studied. These countries were selected due to their democratic political systems,
technological advances and progressive legislative systems. We examined 29 pieces of legislation and 25 cases for the UK context; 27 pieces of legislation in Australia and New Zealand, together with 4 emerging cases; as well as 279 statutes, 52 pieces of pending legislation and 65 cases in the US and Canada. (From the introduction).
Follow to read more from Searchlight 2025. Record #9220
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Access online
|
Vine library | Online | Available | ON25050004 |
In: Searchlight 2025 - Who benefits? Shining a light on the business of child sexual exploitation and abuse (pp. 50-59)
This study is among the first to examine the regulatory context of five closely inter-connected countries (UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) in terms of accountability around child sexual abuse material (CSAM) created via generative
artificial intelligence (gen-AI). The findings of our legislative review have helped us identify the key strengths as well as weaknesses of the legislative contexts studied. These countries were selected due to their democratic political systems,
technological advances and progressive legislative systems. We examined 29 pieces of legislation and 25 cases for the UK context; 27 pieces of legislation in Australia and New Zealand, together with 4 emerging cases; as well as 279 statutes, 52 pieces of pending legislation and 65 cases in the US and Canada. (From the introduction).
Follow to read more from Searchlight 2025. Record #9220
Click on an image to view it in the image viewer