An identifiable individual must appear in the depiction and be marked as themselves
What the document says“The term `identifiable individual' means an individual-- ``(i) who appears in whole or in part in an intimate visual depiction; and ``(ii) whose face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic (including a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature) is displayed in connection with such intimate visual depiction.”
The inserted subsection sets a two part test. The person must appear in whole or in part in the intimate visual depiction, and their face, likeness or other distinguishing characteristic, which the definition says includes a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature, must be displayed in connection with it.
What the document actually says“The term `identifiable individual' means an individual-- ``(i) who appears in whole or in part in an intimate visual depiction; and ``(ii) whose face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic (including a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature) is displayed in connection with such intimate visual depiction.”
The person must show up in the image. Something must mark it as them.
That mark can be a face. It can be a birth mark. It can be any other sign people would know.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.