Says who? If they're the rules for the site then I'll abide by it. However, I received a message from the site owner saying it's okay, hence my posting another video.


These videos were all created using prompts - absolutely no photographs of celebrities were used to create them.

All the training has been done by the AI companies.

I didn't take any photos. I didn't use any photos. I didn't deepfake anything.

Why don't you try to establish some facts before accusing me of stuff I haven't actually done? And, like I said earlier, I posted another video after my last one was restored by Messmaster with an apology.

I didn't mention South Park. I didn't deepfake anything. And, further more, if I want to imagine a celebrity doing stuff in a fantasy then I will . You are not the thought police.

You say "there is no discussion" but there obviously is.

All we need to establish is what are the rules on this site, first and foremost. is it allowed or not? If it's not allowed, I won't post or link to it any more. If it's ok then take it up the the site admin. Or Google. Or Grok. Or OpenAI.

I agree this was done for month and the producers would be continuing to do it if they had not been caught. I would like to make a point on the producers not knowing. Rob quoted copyright laws as it comes to AI over a month and a half ago.

My issue is they got caught, Al has done nothing to address the situation. No apology, content is still up on vidown despite what Rob has stated. Also Rob it is your store, how do you not have the ability to take down the product?

Rob's response is "my bad" and blame Al. Even though there is a post from him sharing one of the images and claiming he created it and the art he created. Countless times he has personally been caught and said "my bad".

There is plenty of imprecise language being used on this thread, and the point isn't whether it's a deepfake or face-swap or if you used a photo in the process: the key point is that we shouldn't allow AI likenesses of a real person made without their consent. Unless you can show us the agreement that Taylor and Angelina signed for you, this is something you have done.

Non-consensual AI likenesses of real people are already not allowed to be hosted on the site. For some reason, MM is allowing them in embedded links hosted off-site. Naturally a lot of people view this as a loop-hole, myself included, and we would like this loop-hole to be closed. MM apologised to you, but that doesn't mean morality is on your side here.

You could have stayed quiet and not made this thread about you. It was about someone making non-consensual AI videos and then selling them, which to me seems like a more serious offence.

On 1, I am a bit confused. I do think the rule was broken by PhotoSlop & RobbyWLP:


The content being sold is on vidown and not sold on umd, but they still violated the rule because they uploaded images and video to umd that used the likeness of people without consent. The rule applies to all uploaded content and not just sold content. The rule does not apply to linked content or discussions.

On 2, I agree, and I think that synthetic content featuring likeness of real people (either generated or using photos) must have model release forms for it to be sold on umd. It also seems like a good idea to have a signed document stating that the synthetic content does not feature the likeness of any real people, and an acknowledgement of the rules. If not a signed document, at least a checkbox. This only works for content being sold on umd though.

On 3, Banning links and discussions about creating non-consensual content is something I am leaning to agree with, and I will discuss this in more of my replies.

You are correct, they did break the rules. I didn't even consider the promotional posts.

Please stop referring to me as a tag team partner.

I see that this thread has devolved into people arguing you can never whack off to any person without their consent. Lol. Ridiculous. Anyway.

Robby's vids were the first WAM vids I ever purchased (in VHS form) back in the 1990s. so I say this as a long-time fan: you need to encourage AI to form his own shop. You can't be tied to a separate poster here who is selling vids under your store because it creates "issues". For example, it is kinda weird. For a while, I though you were AI and AI was you, etc. It almost seems like your alter-ego. Even in this thread, his absence is conspicuous.

Simple fix-- separate. You can still be friends, you can still praise his stuff, but you need to make clear that YOU are not benefiting from AI's work, and that is said without any offered opinion about its quality or legality.

Also, I am not anti-AI zealot and I am a big fan of mainstream WAM, but what the OP originally showed is absolutely not acceptable. It is manipulating reality for your benefit and to the detriment of another.

I don't think anyone has said that, the issue is creating content whether they are images or video which become permanent and searchable content on the web.
Legalities and Moralities aside, people have argued previously it has always been possible with photoshop but the ease in creating the content with AI and the quality makes this way way more accessible.
lets not forget it's nearly 2 years ago the whole taylor swift/Dalle3 thing exploded up.
https://www.geekwire.com/2024/asked-about-taylor-swift-ai-deepfake-images-microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-says-we-have-to-act/

As an aside, I originally intended on creating thread to debate this after a separate issue but the fact there was already this thread created sever hours earlier suggests to me that these issues are going to occur and be raised more frequently as the technology improves.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that's true.

If I took a YouTube video and re-uploaded it to UMD then yes, that would be a breach of copyright. However, if I just post a link to a video then it's ok. If UMD then embeds the clip (and the YouTube channel allows embedding), you can view it from UMD but you're still watching the copy on YouTube rather than a separate copy.

There might be some linked videos which are a breach of copyright (e.g. if they have clips copied from TV shows) but that's a separate question. I.e. the legality is based on the copy that's on YouTube, and links from UMD are irrelevant.

I have been down this road before with videos because there is a HUGE double standard with it. You cannot post copyrighted material on here. But if you make a YouTube account, upload the video there and then post a link here, that is perfectly acceptable. Because MM can not prove that the person that posted the clip on YouTube isin't the copyright owner. That is a YouTube problem. We all know damn good and well that a random user on YouTube does not own the copyright to the clip of a TV show. That a major company like Warner Brothers or Universal would pick a random ass account to post the content instead of using their official YouTube channel. But that part does not matter to MM because he is not hosting the clips. So, if you want to get around the copyright issue, post YouTube links that you uploaded to a YouTube account. The only time oddly enough that anyone here says anything about a YouTube link and copyright is when it is a clip from a producer that sells videos here. Then all hell breaks loose. The other interesting thing to me is that there are certain sites that are not allowed to have links posted here because they are known for posting pirated clips, yet YouTube the king of hosting pirated clips is perfectly fine.

I think that in the rules there needs to be hard lines established. Either copyrighted material is allowed to be posted without the consent of the copyright owner, or it is not. When it comes to A.I., I think that if it is an innocent mistake that is made, or if it is found out that someone you trusted to post original content doesn't, that the material should be immediately deleted from this site. However, we should not be demanding that people also remove content from other sites. The rules here cannot be enforced against other sites. If Robby still wants to sell stuff on VidDown that AL made using copyrighted A.I., so be it. If the person removes all clips when it has been reported, then the issue is done. There is no site rule about repeat offenders when it comes to using copyrighted content to make A.I. stuff and then posting it here. I think that might be what mFeelzGood could be trying to do with this thread in a very round about way. There has also been pointed out the inconsistency of the moderation and removal of posts. I think that if a moderator removes something and then it is later determined that it should not have been removed that the moderator that removed it should be the person restoring the content. That way it avoids looking like the decision of the moderator is being overwritten by another moderator or MM himself.

I left the impression about consent for content to be used to wack off, not consent from the person, but I can see where my comments might come off that way. There are some hard looks people have to have with themselves when it comes to consent. If you strongly believe that consent is needed for pornographic material to be made of a person, does that same consent need to apply with material they made that was not meant for pornography. Why is it ok to use non pornographic material as pornography without the person's consent, but not ok to use their image manipulated without their consent. The end result is the same, their image is being used for pornographic purposes without their consent.

Nobody has said that once. Like nobody at all

See Dalamar's post below yours-- I think there is a line here (trying to avoid "slippery slope") about consent. Dalamar explains it well. My post was a little tongue-in-cheek but I do think I stand to the right (left?) of Dalamar and others on this issue. My name on this forum comes from "Calvin Klein Cream Pies"-- from an old SNL commercial spook where Julia Louis-Dreyfus gets pied-- I confess, I have whacked off to that scene many times without her consent. I don't see it as wrong, but others might. My only point.

I guess you won't read this, having left the forum, but all I am saying is that it is good advice to have a clear line between what you do and what someone else does in case that someone else goofs up and you take the blame.

Reasoning skills on this forum are abysmal.

I get the sarcasm. I guess the issue is to your parlance, the subject has taken a sharp turn left.

The point here is not whether or not someone can use AI to create fantasies in the privacy of their own home for personal reasons. I think trying to control such activities is 1) impossible 2) a huge overreach

The line is crossed when it is shared or sold. That's the problem. If they are original constructs not based off an actual person, I don't see the damage and isn't too much different from animation/cgi.

When the person is real and being put into sexual or fetish scenarios without consent, AND is being shared or sold on this site is what at the core issue here.

EXACTLY!!!! Is content of a real person being shared here in a sexualized context without their consent wrong or right?

Less me first say to the argument that how it is pointless if you can put something on YouTube and link it to this forum. Youtube has a set of standard against copyrighted materials as well. If someone posts a link to a YouTube video and you don't believe they have a right to it, report it to MM and report it on YouTube. If someone had the material monetized than YouTube is quick to unmonetize it.

Another person brought up whether the purpose of videos is not disclosed to the models. For instance in that wet video the producer of that late night video was intending it to be a fun gag. There are some producers and I have heard about them that told models, this is an art project or a music video or even what is art to some people could be porn to others. Producers should be straight forward.

But in both these cases these could be discussions of their own.

There is a small hiccup with this statement. You have to prove to YouTube you are the copyright owner. Just like you have to prove to MM that you own the copyright to the link posted.

I do NOT agree with that stance. But the stance that MM has taken is that for a link to be removed for copyright infringement, you have to prove to MM that the person that posted the clip on YouTube does not own the copyright to that clip.

I don't know this rule and haven't really followed it. I figure usually if a YouTube used has the right to a TV show video on YouTube it is kinda obvious. Like the video I posted was the YouTube channel for the late night talk show.

A while back I went back and forth with MM in a thread for a few days over copyright stuff and how user1456978 owned the rights to a clip.

Is owning the copyright to the clip consent for it to be used in a sexual manner? For example, could the copyright owners for The Great Race discover they had a WAM fetish and sell their movie clips on VidDown?

In the case you brought up, let's say the video on YouTube came from Paramount's channel and was shared here. If Paramount chose to and had knowledge of where the video was being shared, they could request for MM to take it down and legally, he would have to comply or prepare for further action. They're the legal copyright owners and have full control of its use, where and HOW it can be shared.

Now to hunt down publicly posted videos is unrealistic for a company that large and tbh, if it was THAT problematic, Paramount can just remove the video so we don't really concern ourselves with it. It really is the kid shows or content featuring people under the age of 18 we don't permit, and justifiably so. We don't need it here.

This doesn't really apply to the situation here. What we are dealing with are people taking real images (that never belonged them in the first place) of real people (who never consented for their use) being repurposed to create porn of realistic and possibly damaging affect, because that's what WAM is at the end of the day is for all of us. It's porn.

Reporting to YouTube, which is mostly automated to begin with, oftentimes does nothing unless there are frequent enough flags to warrant a bot search of the content. More often than not, no action occurs unless they are in direct violation of ToS and there are few rules regarding AI content.

That pretty much puts the issue of discernment of what is appropriate to share on here in our (mainly Messmaster's) laps. Is it fair? No. Is it mandatory? Yes.

What I am saying is if there is a paramount show like let's say Yellowstone that has a woman falling in a mudpile. If paramount chooses to put that on their YouTube channel or the Yellowstone YouTube channel than you can share the link to that official channel on here. You can't download it and upload it on here. If, let's say a third party posts that clip from Yellowstone on a YouTube channel, if it is posted here it should be flagged as a copyright infringement and MM can remove it but YouTube also has a reporting to have the clip flagged and YouTube will pull down the video if it is a copyright infringement. Now is this going to happen on the YouTube side all the time, No, but it is pretty easy to tell if that YouTube account has access to that TV clip. Most tv shows posted on YouTube will be either under the show's channel or the network's channel.

To the O.P.: In the future, how about we report violations to admins rather than publicly naming and shaming and hounding folks off the Forum. Thanks.

How about people don't sell non-consensual videos?

This has always been a public forum where frank discussions take place. Just because someone has been here from the early days it doesn't mean they are above scrutiny, Rob shouldn't have sold videos for Al without checking what they were, and he could have been more earnest with his apology.

Bizopp does come across as a bit aggressive, but Rob could have muted him, blocked him, and taken it up directly with MM. Instead he decided to try to deflect blame, try to make out this was a campaign to get him to leave, and ultimately, he decided to flounce

The O.P. did report it. I guess you haven't read the whole thread. I wish that Robby would have chosen to block them rather than leave the forums. I think there are many issues raised in this thread that have yet to be addressed by the admins.

No I haven't read every message in this discussion. I have a life and the hysteria here bothers me.

But I'm wondering how all those candid wetlook videos figure into the rules.

As someone else who's been here from the start, I got the impression it was less to do with becoming more XXX and more to do with improving ethics as younger generations of users with more progressive views came of age and on board, coupled with the reality of keeping up with the ever-changing legal situation as the Internet went from totally uncensored wild west on steroids to becoming a regulated part of real life.

Regarding the argument that's raged here though, I think there's a fundamental difference between a clip of something that really happened, and while the participants may not have considered erotic use, they did sign waivers / releases to be broadcast - and taking an image of someone and placing them in a fetish situation **and** then "broadcasting" it by publishing it here or elsewhere.

Personally I'm of the mind that all such content, regardless of whether posted here or posted elsewhere and just linked to, should be banned, but at the same time I realise the difficulty of actually enforcing that. If someone makes an AI wam video of a well known celebrity getting wammed, chances are someone will recognise them and report it, or if its someone from a catalogue image a reverse image search will find it. But do the same with some random sneakily photographed in the street and how does anyone tell they aren't an AI creation?

On Saturday past I was shooting with Miss Abigail, we did six dungeon wetlook scenes. In between we were discussing these threads and AI wam in general, it was an interesting discussion. The one thing that no-one's explicitly mentioned is that one of the biggest side-effects may well be to further "commoditise" women, though of course to an extent all male-gaze erotica does that. But I've thought for a while that AI wam (and AI fetish material in general) is going to massively increase the effect.

Yes, I read the whole thread, and those that led up to it. It seemed to me that the admins, and Robby, were in the process of sorting things out before o.p. pulled the nuclear option and the Hounds of Wammerville descended. Hard for me to retrace things now with Robby's posts deleted. But I doubt this is the outcome anyone wanted or needed.