" (8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where— (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
...
(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults. "
In theory, you could argue that the network was trained on child porn, and as such anything produced by it involved the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; but I can't imagine a court actually buying that arguement.
Having said that the segment I quoted is only the definition of child porn. The law prohibiting child porn [0, section c2] provides that:
"It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating paragraph (1), (2), (3)(A), (4), or (5) of subsection (a) that— ...
the alleged child pornography was not produced using any actual minor or minors. No affirmative defense under subsection (c)(2) shall be available in any prosecution that involves child pornography as described in section 2256(8)(C)"
It is worth mentioning the segments of section A that are excluded from this defence:
Section 3B prohibts the advertisement/distribution/solicitation/etc of of material that is claimed to contain (i) "an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;"
The relevant part of this is (i), where you would need to parse out the definition of "obscene" and "minor". Section 2256 defines minor as "any person under the age of eighteen years", however the courts would probably read it in this context in contrast to the phrase "actual minor". I could not fine the definition of "obscene" or "actual minor". Talk to a lawyer.
Section 6 relates to prohibits providing child porn to a minor.
Section 7 requires a depiction of an identifiable minor.
Moreover in the above quote it seems it could be considered "using" to use the visual identity of a minor.
I'd imagine that meant it you used any reference image of faces for your neural net there's a chance of violating the "letter" of this provision.
This of course if not legal advice.