Law / United States / 
Indiana
Distribution of an Intimate Image and Civil Action for Nonconsensual Pornography, extended to AI-generated images (House Enrolled Act 1047, 2024)
Ind. Code §§ 35-45-4-8, 34-21.5-2-1, 34-21.5-3
In force since .
An AI prohibited practices rule binding public and private bodies.
- Obligation class
- Prohibition, Consent
- Audit expectation
- none
- Setting the rule reaches
- General
What it requires
- Do not distribute an intimate image, including one created or altered by a computer program, artificial intelligence, or other digital editing tool, of an identifiable person who does not consent, when you know or reasonably should know the person does not consent
- A depicted person may bring a civil action for disclosing nonconsensual pornography and recover damages, including statutory damages up to $10,000 per defendant, whether or not the image is an authentic photograph or an AI-generated one
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text. Also read by: State v. Katz, No. 20S-CR-632 (Ind. ) (recorded ).
In the frameworks
- NIST AI RMF
- MAP 3.3Targeted application scope is specified and documented based on the system’s capability, established context, and AI system categorization.
- NIST AI 600-1
- GAI-RISK-08Information Integrity
- GAI-RISK-11Obscene, Degrading, and/or Abusive Content
- MIT mitigations Draft
- NIST Privacy Framework
- CT.PO-P1Policies, processes, and procedures for authorizing data processing (e.g., organizational decisions, individual consent), revoking authorizations, and maintaining authorizations are established and in place.
- FINOS AIGF
- AIR-PREV-005System Acceptance Testing
- ETSI EN 304 223
Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law
Identifiers refer to ETSI EN 304 223 V2.1.1 (2025-12), © ETSI 2025, all rights reserved. ETSI owns the standard; no ETSI text (titles or sentences) is reproduced here. The standard is free to download from ETSI.
If you get it wrong
Criminal exposureYes
Private right of actionYes
Criminal exposure note
Distribution of an intimate image is a Class A misdemeanor (imprisonment up to one year, fine up to $5,000 under Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2), elevated to a Level 6 felony (imprisonment between six months and two and one-half years, fine up to $10,000 under Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b)) if the person has a prior unrelated conviction under the same section.
Penalty structure
The Level 6 felony tier's maximum fine under Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b); the base offense, a Class A misdemeanor under Ind. Code § 35-45-4-8(d), carries a fine of up to $5,000 under Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2, and imprisonment may be imposed with either fine.
- Rule
- Fixed only
- As of
- Currency
- USD
- Fixed cap
- 10,000
Statutory damages
Ind. Code § 34-21.5-3-2(a)(1): a prevailing plaintiff recovers the greater of actual damages or statutory damages not to exceed $10,000 against each defendant for all disclosures by the defendant.
- As of
- Currency
- USD
Who enforces it
Enforcement body
A depicted individual who is identifiable and suffered harm, through a civil action under Ind. Code § 34-21.5-3-1, and the State, through prosecution of the offense in Ind. Code § 35-45-4-8(d).
Settledness
The Indiana Supreme Court construed the distribution offense and upheld it against First Amendment and Indiana constitutional challenges before the 2024 amendment added computer generated images to the definition of intimate image.
- As of
- Case link
- https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/api/Document/Opinion?Id=JyTQlUOUpVk_8em6qYRmuzJrfY7P0069TDX1iuiXFHPK9Y8_SwCltme5K-wxwbkC0
- Case citation
- State v. Katz, No. 20S-CR-632 (Ind. )
- Open questions
- Does Ind. Code § 35-45-4-8(c)(2)(C), which defines an intimate image of an individual created or modified by a computer software program or artificial intelligence by reference to the person described in subsection (d), reach a person who distributes such an image that someone else created?
- When a wholly computer-generated image shows no real photograph of the depicted individual, what makes it of a quality, characteristic, or condition such that it appears to depict the alleged victim under Ind. Code § 35-45-4-8(c)(3)?
What it makes you log
Logging duty
These sections define the crime of distributing an intimate image and the civil action for disclosing nonconsensual pornography, including a computer-generated image within the definition of intimate image, and state their penalties and remedies; they state no logging or record-keeping duty.
- Kind
- None
- As of
What this law does
House Enrolled Act 1047 amended the definition of "intimate image" that runs through both Indiana's criminal distribution-of-an-intimate-image statute and its civil nonconsensual-pornography-disclosure statute to include a photograph, digital image, or video of a person that was created or modified by a computer software program, artificial intelligence, application, or other digital editing tool, so that an AI-generated or AI-altered depiction of a real, identifiable person in an intimate context is treated the same as an authentic one.
Distributing such an image without the depicted person's consent, when the distributor knows or reasonably should know the person does not consent, is a Class A misdemeanor, elevated to a Level 6 felony on a prior unrelated conviction.
A depicted individual who is identifiable and suffered harm may separately bring a civil action for disclosing nonconsensual pornography, recovering the greater of actual and emotional-distress damages or statutory damages up to $10,000 per defendant, plus any of the defendant's monetary gain, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief. Both amendments took effect under the act's own effective-date clause.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app generates images with AI, generates video with AI or publishes adult content.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .