An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in computer offenses, providing for artificial intelligence; and imposing a penalty.
HB317 would add a new subchapter to Pennsylvania’s criminal code governing artificial intelligence-generated material. The bill defines artificial intelligence broadly as technology using predictive algorithms to create new content, including audio, code, images, text, simulations, videos, and a person’s likeness. It then requires anyone who creates or distributes AI-generated image, text, simulation, or video content to place a watermark on 30% of the material, with the watermark at least 50% opaque and containing the statement “Artificial Intelligence Generated Material.”
The bill also creates an exception for film and television productions in Pennsylvania if AI is used only for visual effects without using an individual’s likeness, or if an individual’s likeness is used with written consent. Violations would be treated as second-degree misdemeanors, with a $1,000 fine for a first offense and a $10,000 fine for a second or subsequent violation within five years. The act would take effect 60 days after enactment.
HB317 would amend Title 18, Chapter 76 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes by adding a new artificial intelligence subchapter and creating a new criminal penalty for noncompliance. It would impose disclosure obligations on creators and distributors of AI-generated content across a wide range of media, including text and video, while carving out a specific exemption for certain film and television productions. The bill would affect content creators, media companies, developers, distributors, and potentially individuals whose likenesses are used in AI-generated works.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the overall sentiment appears to be precautionary and regulatory rather than adversarial. The bill’s sponsors suggest concern about transparency and consumer awareness around AI-generated media, especially where synthetic content may resemble real people or be difficult to distinguish from authentic material. No formal vote history or transcript is available here to show organized support or opposition.
The main point of contention is likely to be the scope and practicality of the watermark mandate. Critics could argue that requiring a watermark on 30% of an image, text, or video is technically unclear, difficult to enforce, and potentially burdensome for creators and distributors, especially for text-based content. Another likely issue is whether the criminal penalties are too severe for what may be a disclosure violation. Supporters, by contrast, would likely emphasize transparency, fraud prevention, and protection against deceptive synthetic media, while the film and television exemption suggests an attempt to address industry concerns about legitimate visual effects and consent for likeness use.