![\"Three](\"https:\/\/www.freethink.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/digital-photos-1.jpg?quality=75&w=1200\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nAn 1897 issue of the\u00a0New-York Tribune\u00a0would declare<\/a> the assumption \u201cPhotographs Do Not Lie\u201d an\u00a0\u201cexploded notion,\u201d\u00a0saying that \u201c\u2026at the present time photographs may be and are made to lie with great frequency and facility.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other commercial applications of photo retouching emerged. In 1911, tourists visiting\u00a0Washington DC\u00a0could acquire fake photographs of themselves posing with then-President of the United States\u00a0William Taft. This troubled government officials. Upon discovering the practice in 1911, a\u00a0US attorney\u00a0ordered it stopped.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One (literal) photo-shop offering the novel souvenirs appealed to the White House for its blessing to continue the trade, but was denied. (The practice was not against the law, but pressure from the White House appeared effective, if only temporarily, in the capital.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n The following year, a fugitive wanted for\u00a0people trafficking<\/a>\u00a0was found in possession of a fake photo posing with President Taft. It was reported he\u2019d used it to buy the trust of his victims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That this seemingly benign practice had been weaponized prompted some to demand it be regulated against abuse. The Justice Department\u00a0prepared<\/a>\u00a0a law that was introduced by then-Senator\u00a0Henry Cabot Lodge, who\u2019d similarly been troubled after reportedly finding a photograph of himself with someone he\u2019d never met.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On July 29, 1912, the bill was introduced to the Senate\u00a0\u201cto prohibit the making, showing, or distributing of fraudulent photographs.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n The law would make it illegal\u00a0\u201cto make, sell, publish, or show\u201d\u00a0any\u00a0\u201cfraudulent or untrue photograph, or picture purporting to be a photograph\u201d\u00a0of anyone who had not first given permission. Violation would see punishment of up to six months in jail or a fine up to $1,000 (~$31,800 adjusted for inflation).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The proposed rules made headlines across the US, bringing the topic of fake photographs to wider attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\u00a0Intelligencer Journal\u00a0of\u00a0Pennsylvania\u00a0applauded<\/a> Senator Lodge’s efforts to combat the\u00a0“miserable business of creating fake photographs,”\u00a0saying that while the technology of photography was a\u00a0“wonderful art,” it was\u00a0“manifestly in need of control against abuse.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n The piece emphasized the need for\u00a0“national and state laws”\u00a0to address negatives\u00a0“artfully combined to tell pictorial lies”\u00a0something\u00a0<\/em>the author called\u00a0“photographic crimes,”\u00a0warning\u00a0<\/em>that\u00a0<\/em>anyone\u00a0<\/em>was now vulnerable to slander from fake photos\u00a0“apparently faithful and exhibited as the testimony of the innocent sun.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Not everyone was a fan of the proposed law, however \u2014 some representing the photography community worried about the bills’ unintended consequences. A 1912 edition<\/a> of the publication “American Photography” called it “indefensible,” saying that the law would make photographers and publishers \u201ccontinually liable to blackmailing suits\u201d \u2014 we assume by those claiming to have never given permission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It appears the bill was never voted on and died in the Senate. The following year, President Taft would lose an election to Woodrow Wilson, and reports of a renewed trade in fake photos of President Wilson in the Capital would soon appear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Had the law passed, it would have been very relevant in the 21st century, with the rise of digital photography, Photoshop, and, more recently, AI-enabled image editing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It would have made a federal crime of removing an object from a photo for Instagram without permission of everyone in it. On the other hand, recent\u00a0efforts<\/a>\u00a0to legislate against fake nude images would be unneeded \u2014 those would be illegal already.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Surprisingly, this latter issue was also present in prior centuries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Unmentioned in defense of the proposed law were real cases of “photographic slander” against women. In\u00a01905,\u00a0a gang was using<\/a> the threat of\u00a0\u201cthe circulation of indecent trick photographs for the purposes of blackmail.\u201d\u00a0A 1891\u00a0report<\/a>\u00a0out of Chicago noted the arrest of a\u00a0\u201cgang of scamps\u201d\u00a0<\/em>selling fake nude images of high society women, and 1936 would see a blackmail plot against opera stars.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fake nudes could have been banned over a century ago, but the law was too broad, focusing on more speculative harms rather than specific proven ones. A similar critique is made of some AI regulation proposed today, potentially making this a good lesson for the best way to approach AI regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1923, a year after the law was proposed, a photo would appear of President Taft atop a Carabao, the national animal of the Philippines. It was\u00a0thought<\/a>\u00a0to have been part of an effort to buy goodwill with a nation seeking independence from the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It turns out, it was the very kind of fake photo the Taft administration was railing against. In 2018, history researcher\u00a0Bob Couttie\u00a0discovered<\/a>\u00a0a 1908 photo of President Taft astride a horse in an identical pose: comparing the images, it seems undeniable that Taft had been cut and pasted onto a different image \u2014\u00a0literally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"Old](\"https:\/\/www.freethink.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/digital-photos-2.jpg?quality=75&w=1200\")
Photographic crimes<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.freethink.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/digital-photos-3.jpg?quality=75&w=1200\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.freethink.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/digital-photos-4.jpg?quality=75&w=1200\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.freethink.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/digital-photos-5B-1.jpg?quality=75&w=1200\")
![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.freethink.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/digital-photos-6.jpg?quality=75&w=1200\")
![\"Two](\"https:\/\/www.freethink.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/digital-photos-7.jpg?quality=75&w=1200\")
![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.freethink.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/digital-photos-8.jpg?quality=75&w=1200\")
What if\u2026<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
![\"Three](\"https:\/\/www.freethink.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/digital-photos-9.jpg?quality=75&w=1200\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nSide note: hypocrisy<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
![\"Black-and-white](\"https:\/\/www.freethink.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/digital-photos-10.jpg?quality=75&w=1200\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.freethink.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/digital-photos-11.jpg?quality=75&w=1200\")