Revenge Porn Now Includes AI Images in Maryland
Prior to the enactment of SB 360, which went into effect on July 1, 2025, § 3-809 was primarily designed to address "revenge porn"—the distribution of authentic, private images captured during a relationship. The law required the image to depict an actual, identifiable person. In response to loopholes exploited with AI technology, SB 360 expands the definition of “visual representation” to include a computer-generated image that an ordinary person would conclude depicts a real, identifiable person.
Expanding the Definition of "Visual Representation"
The core of SB 360 lies in its expansion of the legal definition of “visual representation.” Previously, § 3-809 was largely interpreted to apply to authentic, unaltered photographs or videos. SB 360 fundamentally broadens the term "visual representation" to include:
Unaltered images of an identifiable person.
Computer-generated images created with or without using existing depictions of the person.
The law imposes an “ordinary observer” standard: the images/videos must be "indistinguishable" from the actual person from the perspective of an ordinary observer. This ensures that the law captures high-fidelity deepfakes while specifically excluding artistic renderings like cartoons, drawings, sculptures, or paintings.
The Criminal Implications: Closing the Loophole
Before this expansion, victims of "AI-generated revenge porn" often found themselves in a legal gray area. If a perpetrator created a fake nude image of a victim rather than sharing a real one, it was difficult to prosecute under existing sexual assault or harassment statutes.
Under the revised § 3-809, it is now a misdemeanor to knowingly distribute a computer-generated visual representation of an identifiable person that displays them with intimate parts exposed or engaged in sexual activity, provided:
The distributor acts with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, or coerce.
The distributor acts with knowledge of nonconsent or reckless disregard for it.
The victim had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their likeness in that context.
A conviction under this statute carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for up to 2 years, and a fine of up to $5,000, or both.
A New Path to Restitution: The Civil Cause of Action
Perhaps the most significant shift introduced by SB 360 is the creation of a powerful civil remedy. The law empowers victims to maintain a civil action for defamation per se or invasion of privacy against those who distribute intimate AI images.
Because the law classifies this as "defamation per se," victims do not necessarily have to prove specific monetary loss to win; the law presumes that such images are inherently damaging. Furthermore, the statute provides for the recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees, a crucial provision that makes justice accessible to those who might otherwise be priced out of the legal system.
Protecting Privacy in the Courtroom
To prevent "re-victimization" during the legal process, SB 360 includes strict privacy protocols. Any computer-generated or actual intimate images used as evidence in criminal or civil proceedings are sealed from public inspection. They are only accessible to essential parties, such as the judge, jury, counsel, and law enforcement, ensuring that the victim's trauma is not broadcast further through the public record.
Why It Matters: The Real-World Impact
The real-world impact of the inclusion of AI images in the statute cannot be understated. While the statute applies to people of all ages, this is a landmine for juveniles and young adults. Young people need to be advised of the criminal and civil penalties associated with violating the statute. For example, it is now a criminal act to alter a classmate’s photo to make and share an image that appears to show the person with breasts exposed, leading to criminal charges and suspension/expulsion from school.
Laws are evolving to address the consequences of AI deepfakes. It is important to consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney if you or someone you know may have violated the statute.