Summarize Wisconsin nonconsensual intimate imagry laws
Executive summary
Wisconsin criminalizes nonconsensual intimate imagery chiefly through Wis. Stat. §942.09, which makes it a felony to capture, reproduce, possess, distribute, or exhibit intimate representations taken without consent where the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the statute explicitly covers “synthetic intimate representations” such as deepfakes [1] [2]. The law reaches both covert recording and the nonconsensual sharing of images that were originally consensual, and the state has layered criminal statutes with related voyeurism and child‑exploitation provisions as well as emerging rules addressing AI‑generated material [1] [3] [4].
1. What the criminal statute says and who it protects
Wisconsin’s primary criminal text—section 942.09—defines an “intimate representation” framework and makes it a Class I felony to capture an intimate representation without the depicted person’s consent when that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the actor knows or has reason to know there was no consent; the statute also criminalizes making reproductions of such images and possessing, distributing, or exhibiting them when the actor knows they were captured without consent [1] [5]. The statute expressly includes “synthetic intimate representation,” defined as technologically generated depictions that use an identifiable person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic to create intimate content so realistic a reasonable person would believe it depicts the identifiable person, bringing deepfakes within the statute’s reach [2] [5].
2. How the law treats images created consensually but shared without permission
Wisconsin’s statute reaches more than secret recordings: it criminalizes the posting and publishing of intimate representations that were created consensually if the publisher knows the subject did not consent to the capture or to distribution beyond personal possession, meaning “revenge porn”‑style conduct is covered even where the original image was taken with consent [1]. Practitioners emphasize that consent to send an image privately does not equal consent to publish it publicly, and civil remedies in Wisconsin are tied to the criminal definitions in §942.09, so criminal definitions shape available civil claims [1].
3. Related voyeurism and child‑protection rules that intersect with §942.09
Separate statutes prohibit using devices to observe or record someone in locations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy (for example bathrooms or dressing rooms), a body of law that predates and complements §942.09 and was strengthened with felony voyeurism provisions in 2015; images involving minors are governed by child pornography and sexual exploitation statutes that carry distinct and often harsher penalties [3] [6] [7]. Recent Wisconsin legislation also targets AI‑generated child sexual abuse material, reflecting a state effort to criminalize synthetic CSAM in addition to existing child exploitation laws [4].
4. Penalties, enforcement, and gaps noted by practitioners
The statutes classified in reporting are felonies—Wisconsin treats nonconsensual capture and knowing distribution of intimate representations seriously—but precise sentence ranges, prosecutorial charging decisions, and how courts interpret “reason to know” or the scope of “reasonable expectation of privacy” are matters that arise in practice and can vary by case [1] [5]. Legal commentators note enforcement challenges around proving the actor’s knowledge and intent, and that civil remedies often hinge on the same statutory definitions that shape criminal prosecutions [1].
5. The federal backdrop and emerging AI concerns
Wisconsin’s laws exist alongside fast‑moving federal action: the federal “Take It Down Act” creates notice‑and‑removal obligations for online platforms and imposes federal prohibitions and timelines for platforms to handle nonconsensual intimate images and deepfakes, a deadline that has driven state attorneys general (including Wisconsin’s) to press platforms over AI‑generated “undressing” content [8] [9]. National tracking by advocacy groups and law firms shows most states, including Wisconsin, are updating statutes to explicitly address synthetic intimate imagery and AI‑produced sexual content [10] [11].
6. What this reporting does not establish
The sources document statutory language, related laws, advocacy and federal developments, and recent Wisconsin steps against AI CSAM, but do not supply detailed case law showing how Wisconsin courts have applied §942.09 in specific factual patterns, nor do they provide exhaustive sentencing data or statistical enforcement rates; those gaps remain for further legal research or public records requests [1] [4].