|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"Producer caught selling nonconsensual AI wam"
Love you, too
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.
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"
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"
But that's not what happened. You are reframing (I'm being nice and not saying "lying") about what actually happened.
I have already explained multiple times and you simply are unable or unwilling to process that information because of your obsessive need to go after me.
He also happens to be correct. For years people have posted pictures here of people in parks, fountains, volleyball games, etc with zero permission from them for them being wet, messy or muddy that people get off on. That seems to be ok with you.
I never excused what Al did....anywhere. I said "my bad" in reference to not personally checking his pictures.
You have now been wrong about that all through this thread, but keep repeating it. You're like a dog with a WAM bone on that one.
Again, this obsession of yours with me goes way beyond this specific instance.
Robby
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.
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.
It would be helpful if you could address some of the concerns raised earlier in this thread (before it became dominated by the ongoing disagreement between two producers).
Specifically, I'm wondering if linking to nonconsensual AI deepfake content is still going to be allowed on the site, or if you plan to amend the terms of service to prohibit it, as many have suggested.
If the decision is not to make such a change, could you please clarify the rationale for continuing to allow the sharing and discussion of nonconsensual content on UMD?
Sponsors
To avoid content being blocked due to your local laws, please verify your age ?
VIP Coupons
Design & Code ©1998-2025 Loverbuns, LLC 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
Epoch Billing Support Log In