|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"AI Pies Are Not Permitted?"
Love you, too
I received the following:
Thread deleted September 23, 2023 at 18:42pm (2 hours ago) by admin.
Reason: Thanks for posting but going forward AI images based on real people are now not allowed whether the person was a celebrity, a model, or unknown, unless specific permission was obtained.
The AI pics I was posting are based on nobody except my memories in SOME cases. In most cases they are straight out of my imagination. They don't exist. Because someone I once had a WAM experience with has blonde hair, I can no longer create AI WAM pictures here with blonde hair?
That is absurd. It's the 11 of absurd.
Please explain.
You can call me,
Al
Thread deleted September 23, 2023 at 18:42pm (2 hours ago) by admin.
Reason: Thanks for posting but going forward AI images based on real people are now not allowed whether the person was a celebrity, a model, or unknown, unless specific permission was obtained.
The AI pics I was posting are based on nobody except my memories in SOME cases. In most cases they are straight out of my imagination. They don't exist. Because someone I once had a WAM experience with has blonde hair, I can no longer create AI WAM pictures here with blonde hair?
That is absurd. It's the 11 of absurd.
Please explain.
You can call me,
Al
AI images of fantasy people are allowed, but not where they're based on photos of a real person (this also applies to Photoshop or even getting a human digital artist to manipulate an image).
I saw your posts, I left them alone as I interpreted the text to mean you'd just created a fantasy person with similar traits to someone real, as opposed to using actual photos of a real person as the starting point, but another admin may have interpreted it differently hence the delete.
The reason for the rule is to stop people, for example, creating hardcore XXX wam images of long-gone models who only did PG wam in reality, or other abuses.
If you believe your thread should not have been deleted you can always appeal the decision to MM:
Go to the deleted thread.
Click "Report".
Select "Needs Attention".
In the text box, type "I don't think this should have been deleted because" and then give your reasoning.
Submit the report.
I saw your posts, I left them alone as I interpreted the text to mean you'd just created a fantasy person with similar traits to someone real, as opposed to using actual photos of a real person as the starting point, but another admin may have interpreted it differently hence the delete.
The reason for the rule is to stop people, for example, creating hardcore XXX wam images of long-gone models who only did PG wam in reality, or other abuses.
If you believe your thread should not have been deleted you can always appeal the decision to MM:
Go to the deleted thread. Click "Report". Select "Needs Attention". In the text box, type "I don't think this should have been deleted because" and then give your reasoning. Submit the report.Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
There is a difference between a memory of someone you shared an experience with and someone that you invented. I think that if you mentioned that it was based on someone, you told on yourself. But then this means that if people are going to post AI WAM pics, all they have to do is claim to have based the pictures purely on their imagination and in no way inspired by a real person. This is just going to make things harder to determine real VS imaginary.
either way shouldn't "AI Pies" go in the AI Group here? "I never mix my pies!"
That pic in question was based on the fact she was blonde and had a similar dress. I haven't been here for a while but I remember when people were re-creating entire scenes from movies like "The Great Race" and a depiction of Natalie Wood. That's pretty blatant. Is it not? Yet nobody said a thing. I believe there have been 3 Stooges re-creations, 3's Company re-creations with a blonde that looked like Suzanne Sommers, etc.
The picture in question you can't even see the face.
Are we going to draw the line on outfits and hair? Really?
You can call me,
Al
The picture in question you can't even see the face.
Are we going to draw the line on outfits and hair? Really?
You can call me,
Al
On the 'Messy" forum I have been posting AI pie pictures. I had a thread deleted because I mentioned the pic reminded me of an "almost WAM encounter. I haven't been here for a while but I remember when people were re-creating entire scenes from movies like "The Great Race" and a depiction of Natalie Wood. That's pretty blatant. Is it not? Yet nobody said a thing. I believe there have been 3tooges re-creations, 3's Company re-creations with a blonde that looked like Suzanne Sommers, etc.
The picture in question you can't even see the face.
Are we going to draw the line on outfits and hair? Really? Or even things imagined from our own memories of things that never happened?
You can call me,
Al
The picture in question you can't even see the face.
Are we going to draw the line on outfits and hair? Really? Or even things imagined from our own memories of things that never happened?
You can call me,
Al
9/25/23, 4:16pm: Merged here from another thread
PhotoSlop said: I haven't been here for a while but I remember when people were re-creating entire scenes from movies like "The Great Race" and a depiction of Natalie Wood. That's pretty blatant. Is it not? Yet nobody said a thing. I believe there have been 3 Stooges re-creations, 3's Company re-creations with a blonde that looked like Suzanne Sommers, etc.
There has been a lot of discussion around AI and rules change. The forums evolve.
dalamar666 said:
There has been a lot of discussion around AI and rules change. The forums evolve.
PhotoSlop said: I haven't been here for a while but I remember when people were re-creating entire scenes from movies like "The Great Race" and a depiction of Natalie Wood. That's pretty blatant. Is it not? Yet nobody said a thing. I believe there have been 3 Stooges re-creations, 3's Company re-creations with a blonde that looked like Suzanne Sommers, etc.
There has been a lot of discussion around AI and rules change. The forums evolve.
Evolving is a good thing and I understand the concept and there does have to be a line. But on our personal memories of things that never happened where you can't even see a face?
You can call me,
Al
Your images must have convinced the mod that it was a photoshop of a real person 
mFeelzGood said: Your images must have convinced the mod that it was a photoshop of a real person
I think it was the slightly ambiguous text, I saw it and assumed "based on ideas", which would have been fine, but I think someone possibly thought he meant the AI image was a manipulated photo of the actual person mentioned, which would be against the ToS.
As I've already posted details of upthread, there is a really simple and easy way for the OP to appeal the decision, I'd suggest they do so ASAP to resolve the situation.
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
PhotoSlop said: That pic in question was based on the fact she was blonde and had a similar dress. I haven't been here for a while but I remember when people were re-creating entire scenes from movies like "The Great Race" and a depiction of Natalie Wood. That's pretty blatant. Is it not? Yet nobody said a thing. I believe there have been 3 Stooges re-creations, 3's Company re-creations with a blonde that looked like Suzanne Sommers, etc.
The picture in question you can't even see the face.
Are we going to draw the line on outfits and hair? Really?
You can call me,
Al
The picture in question you can't even see the face.
Are we going to draw the line on outfits and hair? Really?
You can call me,
Al
I'm sorry that you're frustrated, I'm sure you worked hard on it. But reread DungeonMasterOne's reply. He explained the rule that the admin deleted it for, and it has nothing to do with the semantics of the outfits or the hair. It's specifically to protect models who only did PG content from being depicted as doing hardcore scenes they'd never consent to. I don't know about the rest of the country, but in the state of California anyone who feels that a sexual image of them is used without consent, that can be considered revenge porn and be liable for a lawsuit. I don't know that this has anything to do with it, but AI is so new there's no telling how it can get misinterpreted or abused. And there's no telling what a lawsuit could decide about it. He also said that if you think it was misinterpreted then talk to Mess Master about it. He's very cool, will listen to you and give you a chance to make your argument.
PhotoSlop said: I get the rule. I understand the rule. But the rule doesn't apply here. The picture is not of any real person. They don't exist. The blonde hair and the outfit exist only in my memory.
In which case appeal the decision to MM, either as I've described upthread or by replying to the message you got. Any decision can be appealed. Doing so will get a much quicker resolution than anything else.
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
PhotoSlop said: That pic in question was based on the fact she was blonde and had a similar dress. I haven't been here for a while but I remember when people were re-creating entire scenes from movies like "The Great Race" and a depiction of Natalie Wood. That's pretty blatant. Is it not? Yet nobody said a thing. I believe there have been 3 Stooges re-creations, 3's Company re-creations with a blonde that looked like Suzanne Sommers, etc.
The picture in question you can't even see the face.
Are we going to draw the line on outfits and hair? Really?
You can call me,
Al
The picture in question you can't even see the face.
Are we going to draw the line on outfits and hair? Really?
You can call me,
Al
OK.
The difference here is it's a recreation with REAL models that only have a passing resemblance to Natalie Wood. The only potential danger here is copyright breech, which if the studios decide happened they can file to have it removed, though an argument of 'parady' is possibly as with all porn version of films.
YOUR images are not real but IF they depict someone who IS real, they can file to take them down as you are using their image without asking permission (deepfake law).
The folks have not done this BUT to stop it happening and get the site in trouble, the admins take down pictures that tread on legal issues, be they harmless or more severe. I'm afraid your argument is a false equivalence as it's a legal issue.
Please don't get frustrated at the mods for keeping this site out of court. Just keep making your pictures, state they are AI and not of anyone real and any passing resemblance to anyone living or dead is purely coincidental, (like they do on every film and TV credit) and you're good.
Silver_sea said:
OK.
The difference here is it's a recreation with REAL models that only have a passing resemblance to Natalie Wood. The only potential danger here is copyright breech, which if the studios decide happened they can file to have it removed, though an argument of 'parady' is possibly as with all porn version of films.
YOUR images are not real but IF they depict someone who IS real, they can file to take them down as you are using their image without asking permission (deepfake law).
The folks have not done this BUT to stop it happening and get the site in trouble, the admins take down pictures that tread on legal issues, be they harmless or more severe. I'm afraid your argument is a false equivalence as it's a legal issue.
Please don't get frustrated at the mods for keeping this site out of court. Just keep making your pictures, state they are AI and not of anyone real and any passing resemblance to anyone living or dead is purely coincidental, (like they do on every film and TV credit) and you're good.
PhotoSlop said: That pic in question was based on the fact she was blonde and had a similar dress. I haven't been here for a while but I remember when people were re-creating entire scenes from movies like "The Great Race" and a depiction of Natalie Wood. That's pretty blatant. Is it not? Yet nobody said a thing. I believe there have been 3 Stooges re-creations, 3's Company re-creations with a blonde that looked like Suzanne Sommers, etc.
The picture in question you can't even see the face.
Are we going to draw the line on outfits and hair? Really?
You can call me,
Al
The picture in question you can't even see the face.
Are we going to draw the line on outfits and hair? Really?
You can call me,
Al
OK.
The difference here is it's a recreation with REAL models that only have a passing resemblance to Natalie Wood. The only potential danger here is copyright breech, which if the studios decide happened they can file to have it removed, though an argument of 'parady' is possibly as with all porn version of films.
YOUR images are not real but IF they depict someone who IS real, they can file to take them down as you are using their image without asking permission (deepfake law).
The folks have not done this BUT to stop it happening and get the site in trouble, the admins take down pictures that tread on legal issues, be they harmless or more severe. I'm afraid your argument is a false equivalence as it's a legal issue.
Please don't get frustrated at the mods for keeping this site out of court. Just keep making your pictures, state they are AI and not of anyone real and any passing resemblance to anyone living or dead is purely coincidental, (like they do on every film and TV credit) and you're good.
I have absolutely no trouble with doing that. In fact, I already have.
But what if I'm creating something that's from a personal WAM experience I have had that exists only in my memory? THAT is what I was getting at. My memory isn't visible to anyone but me? So, I can't for instance, tell the story with the pictures if you can't see a face? Why not?
You can call me,
Al
PhotoSlop said: But what if I'm creating something that's from a personal WAM experience I have had that exists only in my memory? THAT is what I was getting at. My memory isn't visible to anyone but me? So, I can't for instance, tell the story with the pictures if you can't see a face? Why not?
That's fine. What you can't do is start with an actual photo of a real person, unless you have full consent and model releases. That's the only restriction. I'd suggest reading the ToS (Terms & Privacy link at bottom of page), it's written in natural language, not lawyerbabble, and is very readable.
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
DungeonMasterOne said:
That's fine. What you can't do is start with an actual photo of a real person, unless you have full consent and model releases. That's the only restriction. I'd suggest reading the ToS (Terms & Privacy link at bottom of page), it's written in natural language, not lawyerbabble, and is very readable.
PhotoSlop said: But what if I'm creating something that's from a personal WAM experience I have had that exists only in my memory? THAT is what I was getting at. My memory isn't visible to anyone but me? So, I can't for instance, tell the story with the pictures if you can't see a face? Why not?
That's fine. What you can't do is start with an actual photo of a real person, unless you have full consent and model releases. That's the only restriction. I'd suggest reading the ToS (Terms & Privacy link at bottom of page), it's written in natural language, not lawyerbabble, and is very readable.
Got it. But again, the person is that picture does not exist. Anywhere. She is A.I. creation.
Submachines said: The easy answer to all this is keep them for yourself and your own pleasure, and don't share them online or in here 
I prefer a real model and there are PLENTY enough of them around to look at. It's clearly a divisive topic and all it's really doing is making more work for the mods.
It's clever, but probably not worth the hassle
I prefer a real model and there are PLENTY enough of them around to look at. It's clearly a divisive topic and all it's really doing is making more work for the mods.
It's clever, but probably not worth the hassle
I prefer personal WAM experiences and "real" models too. But that is not the point. It is a divisive topic, but it's not one that's going away.
I can't imagine what will happen when the first full on deep fake WAM video hits. You can bet that's coming soon.
You can call me,
Al
PhotoSlop said: Got it. But again, the person is that picture does not exist. Anywhere. She is A.I. creation.
OK. So as I am now suggesting for the fourth time, please, appeal the decision to MM. Either follow the steps I outlined in my first post to this thread, OR reply to the message you got and explain there was no real person involved. You'll get a much quicker response that way than endlessly posting to this thread.
Please, try it.
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
DungeonMasterOne said:
OK. So as I am now suggesting for the fourth time, please, appeal the decision to MM. Either follow the steps I outlined in my first post to this thread, OR reply to the message you got and explain there was no real person involved. You'll get a much quicker response thag way than endlessly posting to this thread.
Please, try it.
PhotoSlop said: Got it. But again, the person is that picture does not exist. Anywhere. She is A.I. creation.
OK. So as I am now suggesting for the fourth time, please, appeal the decision to MM. Either follow the steps I outlined in my first post to this thread, OR reply to the message you got and explain there was no real person involved. You'll get a much quicker response thag way than endlessly posting to this thread.
Please, try it.
Did that an hour or so ago. I was just under the impression that you were under the impression I was using a "real" model.
You can call me,
Al
PhotoSlop said: Did that an hour or so ago.
At last!
PhotoSlop said: I was just under the impression that you were under the impression I was using a "real" model.
I don't know where you got that idea from, I very specifically said I always thought it was OK but someone else might have read different meaning into the text than I did. Hence suggesting appealing it with an explanation.
I'd also suggest being clearer in the text in future if something is based on a memory of someone, be very explicit that it's not based on any actual photo or other real image. From what I remember the one that got deleted could be read various different ways.
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
I think the OP needs to learn how to differentiate between memory and imagination. There are many times in this thread where the memory of someone is referred to as possible inspiration. That means that the person exists. I am not sure where the rules fall on pictures that are inspired by someone. You have said many times that the person only existed in a memory. A memory is not something made up or imagined, but is of an event that happened.
dalamar666 said: I think the OP needs to learn how to differentiate between memory and imagination. There are many times in this thread where the memory of someone is referred to as possible inspiration. That means that the person exists. I am not sure where the rules fall on pictures that are inspired by someone. You have said many times that the person only existed in a memory. A memory is not something made up or imagined, but is of an event that happened.
So, if I see someone randomly on the street, I can't use her outfit as an inspiration? That's all l did. Her outfit...and the blonde hair. The original face looks nothing like her....which you can't see anyway.
You can call me,
Al
There is a difference between being inspired by an outfit you see on the street and a memory of an experience. Let's say for example, that you were inspired by the outfit the person from your experience wore. There is no way for anyone who was not there to know that is all that you based your image on. Were that person to find the forum and find your image, would they see more than just an outfit resemblance? Let's say that the outfit and the hair color were the same, would they see more of a resemblance and think it was them? If that is the case, as CreamMeAgain pointed out, could this person consider the image revenge porn? I think that is the question that all people creating AI images have to ask themselves.
There is a chance that people creating AI images are inspired subconsciously by people they have seen in real life. People that the person may have forgotten about. Should those people find the site and find the images and see the resemblance to themselves, I would hope that they would simply alert the mods and let them take care of it. There is a chance that it is not a coincidence. There is a chance that someone creating the AI image has fantasized about the person before. They took their shot and it did not work out. Now that we have AI some of these people could make images of this person in situations they were never in for their own fantasies. They share these images online. Everyone who sees the image thinks that the image is of someone who does not exist unless they find out otherwise. There have been situations on here where things were not as they were presented and has been quite the opposite.
I don't think this is the case in this situation, but I hope that you can see the other side of this. If something happens MM could find himself in a situation where he now has to explain that he does not know that the people exist and that he is operating with the information that he was given. I doubt it would shut the site down or anything like that. But depending on the situation it could lead to more restrictions than are currently in place with AI images. This could all change based on how long it takes the legal system to catch up to technology. We may end up in a situation where all AI images have to be scrubbed from the site.
There is a chance that people creating AI images are inspired subconsciously by people they have seen in real life. People that the person may have forgotten about. Should those people find the site and find the images and see the resemblance to themselves, I would hope that they would simply alert the mods and let them take care of it. There is a chance that it is not a coincidence. There is a chance that someone creating the AI image has fantasized about the person before. They took their shot and it did not work out. Now that we have AI some of these people could make images of this person in situations they were never in for their own fantasies. They share these images online. Everyone who sees the image thinks that the image is of someone who does not exist unless they find out otherwise. There have been situations on here where things were not as they were presented and has been quite the opposite.
I don't think this is the case in this situation, but I hope that you can see the other side of this. If something happens MM could find himself in a situation where he now has to explain that he does not know that the people exist and that he is operating with the information that he was given. I doubt it would shut the site down or anything like that. But depending on the situation it could lead to more restrictions than are currently in place with AI images. This could all change based on how long it takes the legal system to catch up to technology. We may end up in a situation where all AI images have to be scrubbed from the site.
dalamar666 said: There is a difference between being inspired by an outfit you see on the street and a memory of an experience. Let's say for example, that you were inspired by the outfit the person from your experience wore. There is no way for anyone who was not there to know that is all that you based your image on. Were that person to find the forum and find your image, would they see more than just an outfit resemblance? Let's say that the outfit and the hair color were the same, would they see more of a resemblance and think it was them? If that is the case, as CreamMeAgain pointed out, could this person consider the image revenge porn? I think that is the question that all people creating AI images have to ask themselves.
There is a chance that people creating AI images are inspired subconsciously by people they have seen in real life. People that the person may have forgotten about. Should those people find the site and find the images and see the resemblance to themselves, I would hope that they would simply alert the mods and let them take care of it. There is a chance that it is not a coincidence. There is a chance that someone creating the AI image has fantasized about the person before. They took their shot and it did not work out. Now that we have AI some of these people could make images of this person in situations they were never in for their own fantasies. They share these images online. Everyone who sees the image thinks that the image is of someone who does not exist unless they find out otherwise. There have been situations on here where things were not as they were presented and has been quite the opposite.
I don't think this is the case in this situation, but I hope that you can see the other side of this. If something happens MM could find himself in a situation where he now has to explain that he does not know that the people exist and that he is operating with the information that he was given. I doubt it would shut the site down or anything like that. But depending on the situation it could lead to more restrictions than are currently in place with AI images. This could all change based on how long it takes the legal system to catch up to technology. We may end up in a situation where all AI images have to be scrubbed from the site.
There is a chance that people creating AI images are inspired subconsciously by people they have seen in real life. People that the person may have forgotten about. Should those people find the site and find the images and see the resemblance to themselves, I would hope that they would simply alert the mods and let them take care of it. There is a chance that it is not a coincidence. There is a chance that someone creating the AI image has fantasized about the person before. They took their shot and it did not work out. Now that we have AI some of these people could make images of this person in situations they were never in for their own fantasies. They share these images online. Everyone who sees the image thinks that the image is of someone who does not exist unless they find out otherwise. There have been situations on here where things were not as they were presented and has been quite the opposite.
I don't think this is the case in this situation, but I hope that you can see the other side of this. If something happens MM could find himself in a situation where he now has to explain that he does not know that the people exist and that he is operating with the information that he was given. I doubt it would shut the site down or anything like that. But depending on the situation it could lead to more restrictions than are currently in place with AI images. This could all change based on how long it takes the legal system to catch up to technology. We may end up in a situation where all AI images have to be scrubbed from the site.
As I said, I get it. But "revenge porn" it is not. It's a blonde, in a nice dress, being slimed.
It's very similar to if I saw someone on TV in a dress, but only used the dress because I thought it look good in a picture.
I'll ask again...is that where we are now at? And it does bring up an interesting question. If I created a picture in the famous Jennifer Lopez dress from the Oscars, or a pic of a dress Taylor Swift recently has worn, but the picture looks nothing like either of them, is that ok?
I hope you see where I'm going here.
As a general topic (not linked to this specific image), I think the new policy raises some interesting questions.
As I understand it, you can't take a photo of a real person then tell the AI to add mess, or remove clothing, etc.
However, I'm thinking about police sketch artists, where I can describe a real person for them to draw and then make adjustments as we go along. ("She had short dark hair, with a fringe. She was wearing a hoodie. Her nose was a bit wider than that.") In that scenario, I'm not starting with a photo, but the goal is to make the image recognisable as that person. Presumably you could do something similar with an AI, or you will eventually be able to.
The other question is about face coverage. Taking my profile pic as an example, I'm messy, but anyone who's met me in real life would be able to recognise me. On the other hand, the picture that PhotoSlop posted in this thread wouldn't be recognisable, even if the clean version was identical to a real person.
As I understand it, you can't take a photo of a real person then tell the AI to add mess, or remove clothing, etc.
However, I'm thinking about police sketch artists, where I can describe a real person for them to draw and then make adjustments as we go along. ("She had short dark hair, with a fringe. She was wearing a hoodie. Her nose was a bit wider than that.") In that scenario, I'm not starting with a photo, but the goal is to make the image recognisable as that person. Presumably you could do something similar with an AI, or you will eventually be able to.
The other question is about face coverage. Taking my profile pic as an example, I'm messy, but anyone who's met me in real life would be able to recognise me. On the other hand, the picture that PhotoSlop posted in this thread wouldn't be recognisable, even if the clean version was identical to a real person.
PhotoSlop said: If I created a picture in the famous Jennifer Lopez dress from the Oscars, or a pic of a dress Taylor Swift recently has worn, but the picture looks nothing like either of them, is that ok?
That would be fine. What we're worried about is using the "name and likeness" of another person. If you create a visual lie about them, depicting them doing something they would not do, you can get sued for that.
If you're inspired by a certain look and want to recreate that, it's cool as long as it doesn't depict an actual real person who exists.
Stay messy, my friends
Messmaster said:
That would be fine. What we're worried about is using the "name and likeness" of another person. If you create a visual lie about them, depicting them doing something they would not do, you can get sued for that.
If you're inspired by a certain look and want to recreate that, it's cool as long as it doesn't depict an actual real person who exists.
PhotoSlop said: If I created a picture in the famous Jennifer Lopez dress from the Oscars, or a pic of a dress Taylor Swift recently has worn, but the picture looks nothing like either of them, is that ok?
That would be fine. What we're worried about is using the "name and likeness" of another person. If you create a visual lie about them, depicting them doing something they would not do, you can get sued for that.
If you're inspired by a certain look and want to recreate that, it's cool as long as it doesn't depict an actual real person who exists.
Which is exactly and precisely what I did. Not to mention there was no FACE visible either. If something REMINDS me of a WAM experience and I state that it does but the visual isn't actually OF that experience, how is that improper to post? That is what I don't understand. So using AI, I can create that famous Jennifer Lopez dress (and butt) and everyone knows that's a jennifer lopez dress and if I put a pie in her face so you can't see her face, then that's ok?
You can call me,
Al
PhotoSlop said:
Which is exactly and precisely what I did. Not to mention there was no FACE visible either. If something REMINDS me of a WAM experience and I state that it does but the visual isn't actually OF that experience, how is that improper to post?
Messmaster said:
If you're inspired by a certain look and want to recreate that, it's cool as long as it doesn't depict an actual real person who exists.
If you're inspired by a certain look and want to recreate that, it's cool as long as it doesn't depict an actual real person who exists.
Which is exactly and precisely what I did. Not to mention there was no FACE visible either. If something REMINDS me of a WAM experience and I state that it does but the visual isn't actually OF that experience, how is that improper to post?
You're good! I'm not sure how else to word it, but we keep saying your post was fine and what you did was cool since it wasn't based on a real person. Sorry if I'm not making that clear enough?
Stay messy, my friends
