|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"Producer caught selling nonconsensual AI wam"
Messmaster said:
Can I please ask everyone to turn down the temperature? We are a community. We figure these things out and always have. AI is new to all of us, and the rules are constantly being reconsidered and changed. And things you want changed right now just might be in the process of being changed... just ask!
Everybody is being heard, and nobody is being ignored! I am working *constantly* on coding this site and refining all the rules to take us to the next phase, and nothing is set in stone. Every change requires deep thought so we can maintain synchronicity all the way from the code to the TOS, but opportunists seem to want to put a bad spin on the time it takes to do that
We always need healthy debate, but cynicism and bullying ain't it. We do disagree sometimes but the people here are honest, so why can't we start from there. Thanks to the many people who actually help this site every single day, constantly flagging stuff, giving me advice, and lifting us up. THEY are the reason this site is still here, not the people who pile on right when times get difficult.
bizopp713 said: There needs to be repercussions for actions or else what stops someone from doing it in the future. This is clearly the mostwam situation all over again where Messmaster is going to force the community to make him act instead of doing the right thing from the beginning.
Can I please ask everyone to turn down the temperature? We are a community. We figure these things out and always have. AI is new to all of us, and the rules are constantly being reconsidered and changed. And things you want changed right now just might be in the process of being changed... just ask!
Everybody is being heard, and nobody is being ignored! I am working *constantly* on coding this site and refining all the rules to take us to the next phase, and nothing is set in stone. Every change requires deep thought so we can maintain synchronicity all the way from the code to the TOS, but opportunists seem to want to put a bad spin on the time it takes to do that
We always need healthy debate, but cynicism and bullying ain't it. We do disagree sometimes but the people here are honest, so why can't we start from there. Thanks to the many people who actually help this site every single day, constantly flagging stuff, giving me advice, and lifting us up. THEY are the reason this site is still here, not the people who pile on right when times get difficult.
Based on our previous conversation, you know I've been running a fetish community since 1997. I installed a rule not allowing any AI. Two main reasons. One, we want to support the community's producers and especially the models. Two, it's a moderation nightmare. But based on seeing your actions but also mainly inaction on your part over the years regarding bad actors here, I'm sure you'll do what's best for your wallet.
dalamar666 said:
Where does the site stand? Are the rules for all or for some? Is creating AI from someone without their consent wrong or right?
I have seen talks in this thread about the content being OK as long as it is hosted somewhere else. That is not the case. Many times YouTube links are removed because they contain children in the video. No children in videos is a hard stance that MM has taken. I think that non-consensual AI should be treated the same way. People should be required to prove consent if their content is questioned. The post should be deleted and only restored after consent has been proven through documentation.
Messmaster said: Can I please ask everyone to turn down the temperature? We are a community. We figure these things out and always have. AI is new to all of us, and the rules are constantly being reconsidered and changed. And things you want changed right now just might be in the process of being changed... just ask!
Everybody is being heard, and nobody is being ignored! I am working *constantly* on coding this site and refining all the rules to take us to the next phase, and nothing is set in stone. Every change requires deep thought so we can maintain synchronicity all the way from the code to the TOS, but opportunists seem to want to put a bad spin on the time it takes to do that
We always need healthy debate, but cynicism and bullying ain't it. We do disagree sometimes but the people here are honest, so why can't we start from there. Thanks to the many people who actually help this site every single day, constantly flagging stuff, giving me advice, and lifting us up. THEY are the reason this site is still here, not the people who pile on right when times get difficult.
Everybody is being heard, and nobody is being ignored! I am working *constantly* on coding this site and refining all the rules to take us to the next phase, and nothing is set in stone. Every change requires deep thought so we can maintain synchronicity all the way from the code to the TOS, but opportunists seem to want to put a bad spin on the time it takes to do that
We always need healthy debate, but cynicism and bullying ain't it. We do disagree sometimes but the people here are honest, so why can't we start from there. Thanks to the many people who actually help this site every single day, constantly flagging stuff, giving me advice, and lifting us up. THEY are the reason this site is still here, not the people who pile on right when times get difficult.
Where does the site stand? Are the rules for all or for some? Is creating AI from someone without their consent wrong or right?
I have seen talks in this thread about the content being OK as long as it is hosted somewhere else. That is not the case. Many times YouTube links are removed because they contain children in the video. No children in videos is a hard stance that MM has taken. I think that non-consensual AI should be treated the same way. People should be required to prove consent if their content is questioned. The post should be deleted and only restored after consent has been proven through documentation.
To be fair, AI came up like a missile. I don't think anyone was expecting it to be this much of a problem this early on. Far too fast for anyone to respond if they got their nose buried in code and not on the horizon.
That being said, something needs to be done about it and it's not just here either. It's becoming an industry wide concern.
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
Coming faster than you think. A number 1 country song was AI: https://youtu.be/rGremoYVMPc?si=6vaN3t5Qczjj5H1D so imagine allowing that if you ran a large country music forum.
The job is simple; protect models and producers using models.
The job is simple; protect models and producers using models.
bizopp713 said:
Turn down the temperature? This has been an actual good conversation. The only thing we have all agreed on is that we all agree what was done was wrong and that it is hypocritical to say something is against on site rules and fail to block advertising on site for off site where it is sold. These two should be banned from advertising and even not be allowed to have their link visible on site until those videos are removed and the culprits show they made it right.
Messmaster said:
Can I please ask everyone to turn down the temperature? We are a community. We figure these things out and always have. AI is new to all of us, and the rules are constantly being reconsidered and changed. And things you want changed right now just might be in the process of being changed... just ask!
Everybody is being heard, and nobody is being ignored! I am working *constantly* on coding this site and refining all the rules to take us to the next phase, and nothing is set in stone. Every change requires deep thought so we can maintain synchronicity all the way from the code to the TOS, but opportunists seem to want to put a bad spin on the time it takes to do that
We always need healthy debate, but cynicism and bullying ain't it. We do disagree sometimes but the people here are honest, so why can't we start from there. Thanks to the many people who actually help this site every single day, constantly flagging stuff, giving me advice, and lifting us up. THEY are the reason this site is still here, not the people who pile on right when times get difficult.
bizopp713 said: There needs to be repercussions for actions or else what stops someone from doing it in the future. This is clearly the mostwam situation all over again where Messmaster is going to force the community to make him act instead of doing the right thing from the beginning.
Can I please ask everyone to turn down the temperature? We are a community. We figure these things out and always have. AI is new to all of us, and the rules are constantly being reconsidered and changed. And things you want changed right now just might be in the process of being changed... just ask!
Everybody is being heard, and nobody is being ignored! I am working *constantly* on coding this site and refining all the rules to take us to the next phase, and nothing is set in stone. Every change requires deep thought so we can maintain synchronicity all the way from the code to the TOS, but opportunists seem to want to put a bad spin on the time it takes to do that
We always need healthy debate, but cynicism and bullying ain't it. We do disagree sometimes but the people here are honest, so why can't we start from there. Thanks to the many people who actually help this site every single day, constantly flagging stuff, giving me advice, and lifting us up. THEY are the reason this site is still here, not the people who pile on right when times get difficult.
Turn down the temperature? This has been an actual good conversation. The only thing we have all agreed on is that we all agree what was done was wrong and that it is hypocritical to say something is against on site rules and fail to block advertising on site for off site where it is sold. These two should be banned from advertising and even not be allowed to have their link visible on site until those videos are removed and the culprits show they made it right.
To play devils advocate, MM did leave the avenue open to ban external links off site featuring AI created content of real people. I would like to think he did so with the intention that if things did not exactly pan out the way he had hoped, he could easily pivot his foot the other way.
Now I think it's time that we accept the fact that AI creations need to be limited to original characters and if not, all external links will be prohibited and no stores allowed for any associated accounts in violation. I mean, it is what it is. If we don't draw the line now, who's to say where is stops?
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
Nostalgic Erotica Prod said: To play devils advocate, MM did leave the avenue open to ban external links off site featuring AI created content of real people. I would like to think he did so with the intention that if things did not exactly pan out the way he had hoped, he could easily pivot his foot the other way.
I just don't understand the cynicism. Why does everything have to be an agenda? I am telling you exactly what's going on and will explain anything you ask about. If you don't understand the process then please ask. The terms have been changing like every day for months as I learn more and adjust code and sync the terms and guide us through this. I am asking for your help, not your division.
Stay messy, my friends
Messmaster said:
I just don't understand the cynicism. Why does everything have to be an agenda? I am telling you exactly what's going on and will explain anything you ask about. If you don't understand the process then please ask. The terms have been changing like every day for months as I learn more and adjust code and sync the terms and guide us through this. I am asking for your help, not your division.
Nostalgic Erotica Prod said: To play devils advocate, MM did leave the avenue open to ban external links off site featuring AI created content of real people. I would like to think he did so with the intention that if things did not exactly pan out the way he had hoped, he could easily pivot his foot the other way.
I just don't understand the cynicism. Why does everything have to be an agenda? I am telling you exactly what's going on and will explain anything you ask about. If you don't understand the process then please ask. The terms have been changing like every day for months as I learn more and adjust code and sync the terms and guide us through this. I am asking for your help, not your division.
Bruh, I was literally telling him that you were possibly planning for such a scenario to arise which explains why you left official policy open ended the way you did.
Stop it. I was defending you
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
Nostalgic Erotica Prod said:
Bruh, I was literally telling him that you were possibly planning for such a scenario to arise which explains why you left official policy open ended the way you did.
Stop it. I was defending you
Messmaster said:
I just don't understand the cynicism. Why does everything have to be an agenda? I am telling you exactly what's going on and will explain anything you ask about. If you don't understand the process then please ask. The terms have been changing like every day for months as I learn more and adjust code and sync the terms and guide us through this. I am asking for your help, not your division.
Nostalgic Erotica Prod said: To play devils advocate, MM did leave the avenue open to ban external links off site featuring AI created content of real people. I would like to think he did so with the intention that if things did not exactly pan out the way he had hoped, he could easily pivot his foot the other way.
I just don't understand the cynicism. Why does everything have to be an agenda? I am telling you exactly what's going on and will explain anything you ask about. If you don't understand the process then please ask. The terms have been changing like every day for months as I learn more and adjust code and sync the terms and guide us through this. I am asking for your help, not your division.
Bruh, I was literally telling him that you were possibly planning for such a scenario to arise which explains why you left official policy open ended the way you did.
Stop it. I was defending you
Thank you for your explanation and sorry if I was defensive. Lots going behind the scenes nowadays.
You are absolutely right that I try to mention in policy what is subject to change because there is so much we don't know yet. For whatever reason, others have tried to paint that as dishonesty, but that's apparently not what you meant. Thanks for the explanation. I'll go back to the backend now 
Stay messy, my friends
Messmaster said:
Thank you for your explanation and sorry if I was defensive. Lots going behind the scenes nowadays. You are absolutely right that I try to mention in policy what is subject to change because there is so much we don't know yet. For whatever reason, others have tried to paint that as dishonesty, but that's apparently not what you meant. Thanks for the explanation. I'll go back to the backend now
Nostalgic Erotica Prod said:
Bruh, I was literally telling him that you were possibly planning for such a scenario to arise which explains why you left official policy open ended the way you did.
Stop it. I was defending you
Messmaster said:
I just don't understand the cynicism. Why does everything have to be an agenda? I am telling you exactly what's going on and will explain anything you ask about. If you don't understand the process then please ask. The terms have been changing like every day for months as I learn more and adjust code and sync the terms and guide us through this. I am asking for your help, not your division.
Nostalgic Erotica Prod said: To play devils advocate, MM did leave the avenue open to ban external links off site featuring AI created content of real people. I would like to think he did so with the intention that if things did not exactly pan out the way he had hoped, he could easily pivot his foot the other way.
I just don't understand the cynicism. Why does everything have to be an agenda? I am telling you exactly what's going on and will explain anything you ask about. If you don't understand the process then please ask. The terms have been changing like every day for months as I learn more and adjust code and sync the terms and guide us through this. I am asking for your help, not your division.
Bruh, I was literally telling him that you were possibly planning for such a scenario to arise which explains why you left official policy open ended the way you did.
Stop it. I was defending you
Thank you for your explanation and sorry if I was defensive. Lots going behind the scenes nowadays.
You are absolutely right that I try to mention in policy what is subject to change because there is so much we don't know yet. For whatever reason, others have tried to paint that as dishonesty, but that's apparently not what you meant. Thanks for the explanation. I'll go back to the backend now Nothing to apologize for. I am objective so if that comes across as cynical, that's not the intention. AI honestly has everyone kinda worried and it happened way faster than anticipated. Even if you tried to stay on top of it, this was still gonna happen. If not here, then somewhere else.
Issue is, it has happened here so I guess the big question is now what the hell are we gonna do about it?
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
Messmaster said: Thanks for the explanation. I'll go back to the backend now
Is the site and the day to day operations getting to a point where you need to divide your duties? Where you work on the back end things and have someone appointed as a head moderator of sorts. Someone that can address these kind of issues when they come up. Someone that will take the TLDR to you for a final ruling. It seems like you enjoy the back end stuff more than the day to day moderation and policy discussions.
RobbyWLP said: Is everyone done?
Ok, so Bizopp is really playing around with the truth here.
Let's start at the beginning. He has a unique "hate" for me which I have never been able to explain. He tells me how everyone on the UMD doesn't like me among other things. He also didn't like that I posted WAM stories for some reason. He also messaged me objecting to what Al was charging for his videos, like he thought he could tell Al what to charge. So he's been on a WAM vendetta since I've been back. It's weirdly obsessive.
But what happened here was pretty simple.
Al (Photoshop) put a number of copyrighted photos in his WAM Humiliation Video. That was wrong. Period. I've let him use the old WLP site, so I should have checked as well. Again, that one is on me.
I never argued about it and even took the blame for it because I should have told him at some point. As I said to BizOpp and he ignored...."Mea Culpa". Maybe I should have translated for him.
But the fact is people from the UMD (and others off UMD) were sending him pictures for his Vids and he just started using those as well as his own stuff which was created out of thin air. Pretty sure "thin air" isn't copyrighted....at least not yet.
I had one or two up as well because I just assumed incorrectly that he was just using pictures that were NOT copyrighted. I have now taken those down as well. If I missed anything I told MM to let me know. Al is pulling all the vids off of the WLP website and will re-edit them without the copyrighted photos.
But apparently that's not good enough for BizOpp. He wants to ban Al and I from the UMD forum. Actually, he's so pissy that I''m surprised he didn't suggest lethal injection.
Look Bizopp, I get it. WAM A.I. will eventually eat into your profits.That cannot be a fun thought. But the reality is that WAM A.I. is in it's infancy. Not liking it, doesn't make that fact cease to exist.
If you would like to commiserate on that fact, I know a guy who had a number of Fotomat franchises.
Robby
Ok, so Bizopp is really playing around with the truth here.
Let's start at the beginning. He has a unique "hate" for me which I have never been able to explain. He tells me how everyone on the UMD doesn't like me among other things. He also didn't like that I posted WAM stories for some reason. He also messaged me objecting to what Al was charging for his videos, like he thought he could tell Al what to charge. So he's been on a WAM vendetta since I've been back. It's weirdly obsessive.
But what happened here was pretty simple.
Al (Photoshop) put a number of copyrighted photos in his WAM Humiliation Video. That was wrong. Period. I've let him use the old WLP site, so I should have checked as well. Again, that one is on me.
I never argued about it and even took the blame for it because I should have told him at some point. As I said to BizOpp and he ignored...."Mea Culpa". Maybe I should have translated for him.
But the fact is people from the UMD (and others off UMD) were sending him pictures for his Vids and he just started using those as well as his own stuff which was created out of thin air. Pretty sure "thin air" isn't copyrighted....at least not yet.
I had one or two up as well because I just assumed incorrectly that he was just using pictures that were NOT copyrighted. I have now taken those down as well. If I missed anything I told MM to let me know. Al is pulling all the vids off of the WLP website and will re-edit them without the copyrighted photos.
But apparently that's not good enough for BizOpp. He wants to ban Al and I from the UMD forum. Actually, he's so pissy that I''m surprised he didn't suggest lethal injection.
Look Bizopp, I get it. WAM A.I. will eventually eat into your profits.That cannot be a fun thought. But the reality is that WAM A.I. is in it's infancy. Not liking it, doesn't make that fact cease to exist.
If you would like to commiserate on that fact, I know a guy who had a number of Fotomat franchises.
Robby
This is you problem. You clearly are passing the buck and acting unapologetic to the fact that you have done this with no remorse. You used women's likeness without their consent and you feel like there is nothing wrong with it.
I don't give a shit about AI created solely from prompts if people want to share it at no to little cost. AI is never going to take the place of real wam. Have you seen the shitty AI looks.
You chose to steal someone's likeness because you clearly are lazy and can't produce prompt AI.
Btw still waiting for you to apologize to the community you broke it's guidelines and thought so little of glamour models that you stole and used their likeness.
Here is some more evidence. The woman wearing this dress and holding the purse in her left hand seems to come from shopping websites. Her face was replaced along with the background.
 Love you, too |
Your response to being caught using copyrighted images of women with without their permission is "My Bad" like you made a tiny unknown mistake? You response to profiting off it is that AL should pay for your dinner. You realize this is an illegal action.
Which btw you can take down your product but you are still keeping the money paid for the files and knowing you and your nonchalant attitude.you have shown, you will probably start steeling pictures from IG and other media that isn't as traceable.
Which btw you can take down your product but you are still keeping the money paid for the files and knowing you and your nonchalant attitude.you have shown, you will probably start steeling pictures from IG and other media that isn't as traceable.
RobbyWLP said:
Al (Photoshop) put a number of copyrighted photos in his WAM Humiliation Video. That was wrong. Period. I've let him use the old WLP site, so I should have checked as well. Again, that one is on me.
Robby
Al (Photoshop) put a number of copyrighted photos in his WAM Humiliation Video. That was wrong. Period. I've let him use the old WLP site, so I should have checked as well. Again, that one is on me.
Robby
Help me out here.
How does Photoshop input anything copyrighted into a video when they have gone public about their generative AI not being used in that manner? I use photoshop religiously for my photography and while I have seen generative remove and fill do some pretty wild things, generating copyright material isn't one of them. Not accusing here and just Truly curious because that's never happened to me so I need context here
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
RobbyWLP said:
I didn't. I said CLEARLY I should have checked his content. That's MY fault because the WLP website is mine. But I didn't create or sell those vids. WTH is wrong with you? Let it go. You made your point with your tag team partner that it's a copyright violation to sell those videos. I agreed. You keep obsessing.
Robby
bizopp713 said:
Did you miss this? You can't just blame AL.
RobbyWLP said: No, "my bad" was my response for not carefully looking at Al's content. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
Did you miss this? You can't just blame AL.
I didn't. I said CLEARLY I should have checked his content. That's MY fault because the WLP website is mine. But I didn't create or sell those vids. WTH is wrong with you? Let it go. You made your point with your tag team partner that it's a copyright violation to sell those videos. I agreed. You keep obsessing.
Robby
That is your forum post not Al's and that is you bragging about how you made it. Your bad for not checking on Al as you created and posted copywritered content and bragged about making it?
|
Love you, too |
Nostalgic Erotica Prod said:
How does Photoshop input anything copyrighted into a video
RobbyWLP said:
Al (Photoshop) put a number of copyrighted photos in his WAM Humiliation Video.
Al (Photoshop) put a number of copyrighted photos in his WAM Humiliation Video.
How does Photoshop input anything copyrighted into a video
I think that was a typo, i.e. Robby meant "Photoslop" (the other person's username on this site) rather than "Photoshop" (the software application).
RobbyWLP said: Robby
That is your forum post not Al's and that is you bragging about how you made it. Your bad for not checking on Al as you created and posted copywritered content and bragged about making it?
I bragged about creating a decent looking A.I. creation from one of Al's pictures because most of my A.I creations, at least WAM ones I've attempted turned out awful. I got ONE right....maybe two. It's kind of like me "bragging" about my ball room dancing skills because I twirled ONCE correctly. Self-deprecating is not bragging.
What are you going to accuse me of next......using a white plastic chair and a scrunchy with a woman wearing an inside out sweat shirt and sweat socks?
Stop the obsession. Like I said, it doesn't look good on you.
Robby
Seriously? Just admit you were doing it as well and apologize. No one believes these stupid explanations.
bizopp713 said:
This is you problem. You clearly are passing the buck and acting unapologetic to the fact that you have done this with no remorse. You used women's likeness without their consent and you feel like there is nothing wrong with it.
This is you problem. You clearly are passing the buck and acting unapologetic to the fact that you have done this with no remorse. You used women's likeness without their consent and you feel like there is nothing wrong with it.
You all need to get off your self righteousness and STFU. Don't pretend that there aren't thousands of posts on this site over the decades of video and pictures of WAM from TV shows (where last I checked those contestants didn't sign a waiver saying it was ok to jerk off to them).
Then there are the celebrity posts, and the candid posts of people at fountains and shit. Over the years the rules were changes as the site became more and more an XXX domain.
Damn fool of a tuber
This image came from amazon for a teenage prom dress. It was an exact match. I blurred it out in case the fashion model was a minor.
This post was not about copyright. It was about consent and using images of people without their consent to sell on adult fetish website.
This post was not about copyright. It was about consent and using images of people without their consent to sell on adult fetish website.
|
Love you, too |
PotatomanK said:
You all need to get off your self righteousness and STFU. Don't pretend that there aren't thousands of posts on this site over the decades of video and pictures of WAM from TV shows (where last I checked those contestants didn't sign a waiver saying it was ok to jerk off to them).
Then there are the celebrity posts, and the candid posts of people at fountains and shit. Over the years the rules were changes as the site became more and more an XXX domain.
bizopp713 said:
This is you problem. You clearly are passing the buck and acting unapologetic to the fact that you have done this with no remorse. You used women's likeness without their consent and you feel like there is nothing wrong with it.
This is you problem. You clearly are passing the buck and acting unapologetic to the fact that you have done this with no remorse. You used women's likeness without their consent and you feel like there is nothing wrong with it.
You all need to get off your self righteousness and STFU. Don't pretend that there aren't thousands of posts on this site over the decades of video and pictures of WAM from TV shows (where last I checked those contestants didn't sign a waiver saying it was ok to jerk off to them).
Then there are the celebrity posts, and the candid posts of people at fountains and shit. Over the years the rules were changes as the site became more and more an XXX domain.
That is one of the most rediculous and short sided arguments I have ever heard. People have posted pictures and tv shows show clips as they were made. Anyone signing up to get gunged on a TV program, signs off knowing the released video will be of them getting gunged. They are not misled.
People get off to many different things. Models that pose for shoe catalogs are consenting to their feet being released in shoes. Some people jerk off to that stuff but they are doing it to the way the images are intended.
In this case the models have given their consent to being pictured in glamorous clothing. If you want to jerk off to the ad as it appears then she has no consent argument. But they did not consent to have someone manipulate their likeness and have a pie smashed in their face.
How about this as an example, you take a picture of your 20 year old daughter and post it on your Facebook and Rob took the picture and AI'd it so a pie was smashed in her face, then he gave it to Al who sold your daughter's image without her permission so people could jerk off to it. And then when caught he says "My Bad"
bizopp713 said: That is one of the most rediculous and short sided arguments I have ever heard. People have posted pictures and tv shows show clips as they were made. Anyone signing up to get gunged on a TV program, signs off knowing the released video will be of them getting gunged. They are not misled.
You are in the wrong on this one. Please tell me where it says in a release that their participation in the activity will be used on the internet for people's spank banks. People signing these releases and participating in these shows probably have no clue what WAM is. I would also be willing to bet that a lot of people in charge of making these shows have no clue what WAM is.
The argument I think of when it comes to people and the rights they give up is best summed up with this example. There is a store that sells clothing to states in my area. That store found a stock image of a locally famous actor in an item of clothing similar to what they sell. These images can be used by anyone for almost anything, Ed Wood made a career doing it. That company then used this image in their marketing campaigns, billboards etc making it appear that this actor had worked with them on the ad campaign when that is not the case. The actor was mad that their image was being used by the company without compensation. When they dug into things and found out where the image came from, they realized they had no case. Was it unethical what the company did, 100%. The company knew exactly what people would assume from this campaign and that the actors popularity would generate sales.
I think that we need to develop some guidelines from the discussions in this thread. I think that we need more clear rules around the use of AI that cannot be misinterpreted or manipulated from their meaning. I also think that those rules need to be enforced the same way rules around children in WAM are enforced. I think that there needs to be a different category of flag for copyright infringement or non-consensual use. I think these should take priority over other flags and reporting that exists.
dalamar666 said:
You are in the wrong on this one. Please tell me where it says in a release that their participation in the activity will be used on the internet for people's spank banks. People signing these releases and participating in these shows probably have no clue what WAM is. I would also be willing to bet that a lot of people in charge of making these shows have no clue what WAM is.
The argument I think of when it comes to people and the rights they give up is best summed up with this example. There is a store that sells clothing to states in my area. That store found a stock image of a locally famous actor in an item of clothing similar to what they sell. These images can be used by anyone for almost anything, Ed Wood made a career doing it. That company then used this image in their marketing campaigns, billboards etc making it appear that this actor had worked with them on the ad campaign when that is not the case. The actor was mad that their image was being used by the company without compensation. When they dug into things and found out where the image came from, they realized they had no case. Was it unethical what the company did, 100%. The company knew exactly what people would assume from this campaign and that the actors popularity would generate sales.
I think that we need to develop some guidelines from the discussions in this thread. I think that we need more clear rules around the use of AI that cannot be misinterpreted or manipulated from their meaning. I also think that those rules need to be enforced the same way rules around children in WAM are enforced. I think that there needs to be a different category of flag for copyright infringement or non-consensual use. I think these should take priority over other flags and reporting that exists.
bizopp713 said: That is one of the most rediculous and short sided arguments I have ever heard. People have posted pictures and tv shows show clips as they were made. Anyone signing up to get gunged on a TV program, signs off knowing the released video will be of them getting gunged. They are not misled.
You are in the wrong on this one. Please tell me where it says in a release that their participation in the activity will be used on the internet for people's spank banks. People signing these releases and participating in these shows probably have no clue what WAM is. I would also be willing to bet that a lot of people in charge of making these shows have no clue what WAM is.
The argument I think of when it comes to people and the rights they give up is best summed up with this example. There is a store that sells clothing to states in my area. That store found a stock image of a locally famous actor in an item of clothing similar to what they sell. These images can be used by anyone for almost anything, Ed Wood made a career doing it. That company then used this image in their marketing campaigns, billboards etc making it appear that this actor had worked with them on the ad campaign when that is not the case. The actor was mad that their image was being used by the company without compensation. When they dug into things and found out where the image came from, they realized they had no case. Was it unethical what the company did, 100%. The company knew exactly what people would assume from this campaign and that the actors popularity would generate sales.
I think that we need to develop some guidelines from the discussions in this thread. I think that we need more clear rules around the use of AI that cannot be misinterpreted or manipulated from their meaning. I also think that those rules need to be enforced the same way rules around children in WAM are enforced. I think that there needs to be a different category of flag for copyright infringement or non-consensual use. I think these should take priority over other flags and reporting that exists.
What I am saying is that if you sign a release for an image to be used by a producer as it should be then how people react to those images is not controlled. Yes, some models and celebs sign agreements and sign away the rights to the images to another company. But in your scenario they did not change the image. If the company had changed the outfit or put words in her mouth like "Jennifer Aniston loves Dressbarns dresses" then the celeb would have cause.
I am not saying people on messy tv shows signed off on being in spank banks but they did sign a release for the TV show to be aired the way it was shot. The girls on Love island signed off on appearing on TV pied. When that is added to this forum it isn't manipulated from it's original filmed status. If someone used AI to make the girls nude then that would be an infringement. Also, these clips should be listed from sites where they have the right to show the clip like Love Island's social media accounts.
As for Rob's argument I haven't seen any voyuer images of women in fountain or playing volleyball but those should be called out too. Give an example though.
bizopp713 said:I am not saying people on messy tv shows signed off on being in spank banks but they did sign a release for the TV show to be aired the way it was shot. The girls on Love island signed off on appearing on TV pied. When that is added to this forum it isn't manipulated from it's original filmed status. If someone used AI to make the girls nude then that would be an infringement. Also, these clips should be listed from sites where they have the right to show the clip like Love Island's social media accounts.
You are still focusing on infringement when this is about consent. When those clips were posted to this site, no one having anything to do with the production or distribution of that clip gave consent for it to be posted on a porn site for spank bank.
dalamar666 said:
You are still focusing on infringement when this is about consent. When those clips were posted to this site, no one having anything to do with the production or distribution of that clip gave consent for it to be posted on a porn site for spank bank.
bizopp713 said:I am not saying people on messy tv shows signed off on being in spank banks but they did sign a release for the TV show to be aired the way it was shot. The girls on Love island signed off on appearing on TV pied. When that is added to this forum it isn't manipulated from it's original filmed status. If someone used AI to make the girls nude then that would be an infringement. Also, these clips should be listed from sites where they have the right to show the clip like Love Island's social media accounts.
You are still focusing on infringement when this is about consent. When those clips were posted to this site, no one having anything to do with the production or distribution of that clip gave consent for it to be posted on a porn site for spank bank.
Was it posted to the UMD forum because I don't think many of those TV show clips added were links to YouTube videos. The YouTube video was posted with the network and producer's permission.
For instance if I am to post the link to this https://youtu.be/4030AgW33Mc?si=tvxMvnCT_baxpPWy the YouTube channel is the channel for the show and they have the rights to the footage. I am not posting it to this forum and definitely not trying to sell it. I am just sharing how you could view this video on the proper channel.
The women in this clip signed a release that allows the studio to put this clip on a public forum. They knew viewers were going to be able to see them getting wet.
bizopp713 said:The women in this clip signed a release that allows the studio to put this clip on a public forum. They knew viewers were going to be able to see them getting wet.
Nobody signed a release for the footage to be used for sexual purposes.
dalamar666 said:
Nobody signed a release for the footage to be used for sexual purposes.
bizopp713 said:The women in this clip signed a release that allows the studio to put this clip on a public forum. They knew viewers were going to be able to see them getting wet.
Nobody signed a release for the footage to be used for sexual purposes.
You can't have a release form that says nobody will find this sexual. There are so many things that are sexual. There are people that find sneezing sexy, farting sexy, feet sexy, and so on. You can't control someone's reactions to art. You can't make that a legal consent standard. The only standard you can use is, does the individual showing the material have the right to the material (which btw the individual for that YouTube clip is the producer on youtube, not me) and was it manipulated (which is the issue here). With your earlier example, if the celebrity in the Ad had a different dress on in the ad from the original photo or they quoted the celebrity in the ad, it would be manipulated and they would have a case.
dalamar666 said: I think that we need to develop some guidelines from the discussions in this thread. I think that we need more clear rules around the use of AI that cannot be misinterpreted or manipulated from their meaning. I also think that those rules need to be enforced the same way rules around children in WAM are enforced. I think that there needs to be a different category of flag for copyright infringement or non-consensual use. I think these should take priority over other flags and reporting that exists.
Yeah, it would be nice to discuss the rules and how to improve. I wonder if PhotoSlop & RobbyWLP misunderstood the rules or never read them:
https://umd.net/termsofservice/#deep_fakes
The consent rule seems clear and fair to me though. I suppose for some, they may not understand what the word "consent" means in the context of generating ai content. Or, maybe it is the term "likeness" which is not understood.
I have seen others post a few images that resemble real people. I reported a few and use the "Illegal" option. I've seen others report it. It gets addressed and removed quickly. Actually, mods are faster than other social media platform report systems. The moderation here is decent, and the community pitches in with reports. People that do it seem to learn not to repeatedly do it by having their content removed and a reason message from a mod. The system works.
The thing about this case is that they have been doing this for months, and they were trying to sell this content which may be considered illegal. The problem is identifying if the content is illegal. The only reason why this was discovered was because bizopp713 did a reverse image search and replied with what he found on the deleted thread. I created this thread afterwards. I assume producer's real content is legal because of ID checks for 18 U.S.C. 2257 compliance, and model release forms. With synthetic content, I can no longer assume that. It could be non-consensual or it could depict minors. This is on the communities whim to report, and awareness is important. Producers that want to sell content need to understand the rules though.
dalamar666 said:
Nobody signed a release for the footage to be used for sexual purposes.
bizopp713 said:The women in this clip signed a release that allows the studio to put this clip on a public forum. They knew viewers were going to be able to see them getting wet.
Nobody signed a release for the footage to be used for sexual purposes.
"Oh my god! When I put my video up on the Internet I never consented for you to jerk off to it!"
The fact that a video is AI isn't actually the issue here.
The thing with UMD is that it doesn't do much oversight at all, and it puts all the legal responsibility on the producer. So it tells producers they need a release form but it never checks or stores them (unlike other adult sites). It tells AI producers the same thing: if these videos were hosted on UMD (they weren't), then the producer would be declaring that they had a release form for the real models that the videos are based on. But no-one at UMD would have checked this. The exact same thing could happen with a real video. It would be trivially easy for someone to sell "revenge porn" on UMD, and it would be just as easy to do it as real video as it would as AI. I would not be surprised if it's already happened in the past.
What I think should happen:
1. The PhotoSlop user should be restricted (or possibly banned) for setting these clips up for sale in a way that bypasses the spirit of the rules here. Technically no rules were broken, but if intention wasn't to break rules, they could have just set up a store on UMD rather than ask their mate Robby to sell them.
2. We require a model release declaration for any content linked from this site that the user has created.
3. We ban embedded links to AI fetish content featuring real people. We can remove a link if it's a TV show made for kids, so we can do it for bad AI celebrity slime clips.
Responding to releases, consent and and content that's viewed sexually. When you consent to put out any type of content that ends up in the public domain, you don't get to control how that content is viewed. I've produced too many socks videos to count since there's a huge socks fetish. I had an incident years back. A girl posted a video on youtube that also happened to be the fetish of the community I run. I linked to it in my forum and her traffic exploded. She then sent me a rather nasty message about removing the link and in a very nice way, I told her to fuck off. She wanted attention - she got it. She can't control the kind of attention she gets.
This, however, it completely different from manipulating someone into consenting to do any type of content when your only goal is the sexualization of that content. That would be like me hosting a sorority pie in the face fundraiser, getting the girls to sign off that it's being filmed and uploaded to youtube, but my only goal is to jack off.
This, however, it completely different from manipulating someone into consenting to do any type of content when your only goal is the sexualization of that content. That would be like me hosting a sorority pie in the face fundraiser, getting the girls to sign off that it's being filmed and uploaded to youtube, but my only goal is to jack off.
Sponsors
Sponsors
Design & Code ©1998-2025 Loverbuns, LLC 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
Epoch Billing Support Log In