Sorry, this is a VIP-only feature.
|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"Producer caught selling nonconsensual AI wam"
DungeonMasterOne said:
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.
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.
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.
I was trying to make this a point when I originally called him out. The act itself objectified the models involved. It basically was saying I can take any female I want and make them into a fetish model and they would have no say to it. I also believe AI sold at a same price as equal to model produced content is diminishing the value of the models that shoot this content.
Saturation Hall, Langstonedale
Lord of the Pies
bizopp713 said: I was trying to make this a point when I originally called him out. The act itself objectified the models involved. It basically was saying I can take any female I want and make them into a fetish model and they would have no say to it.
Agreed. Though I don't think there's any practical way to stop people doing that in private, other than teaching them to respect others, publishing (which is what Internet posting is a form of) moves things to a whole different legal level.
bizopp713 said:I also believe AI sold at a same price as equal to model produced content is diminishing the value of the models that shoot this content.
Here we disagree. Any content, regardless of how created, is worth what people are willing to pay for it. I believe that real world modelled WAM has an appeal that synthetic generations don't, which is why I'm continuing to spend money shooting material and will do for as long as it continues to sell. But that doesn't mean no one should be allowed to sell generated content, rather it's down to me and other real world producers to market our products effectively, rather than trying to ban competition.
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
DungeonMasterOne said:
Here we disagree. Any content, regardless of how created, is worth what people are willing to pay for it. I believe that real world modelled WAM has an appeal that synthetic generations don't, which is why I'm continuing to spend money shooting material and will do for as long as it continues to sell. But that doesn't mean no one should be allowed to sell generated content, rather it's down to me and other real world producers to market our products effectively, rather than trying to ban competition.
Here we disagree. Any content, regardless of how created, is worth what people are willing to pay for it. I believe that real world modelled WAM has an appeal that synthetic generations don't, which is why I'm continuing to spend money shooting material and will do for as long as it continues to sell. But that doesn't mean no one should be allowed to sell generated content, rather it's down to me and other real world producers to market our products effectively, rather than trying to ban competition.
This.
I am no way saying that AI can't exist here or, in fact, can't make money off their work and I don't think anyone else is saying that either.
What we ARE saying is that there needs to be rules in place and any rules preexisting are there for a reason and that is to protect the forum, the user and the person(s) involved. Rules are pretty simple: No selling or posting of AI content of real people unless you have hired them for that purpose (with the paperwork to prove it) or it's the creator themselves.
The only other topic that I consider relevant is whether or not external links to content that violates these rules should be permitted and my stance is if we hold that measure for other forms of content like kids shows, then it's only fair to apply it to AI images of real people as well. Otherwise we are kinda sending a mixed message and people are gonna continue making this mistake. It's kinda hard to hold anyone accountable for something they may or may not fully understand.
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
DungeonMasterOne said:
Agreed. Though I don't think there's any practical way to stop people doing that in private, other than teaching them to respect others, publishing (which is what Internet posting is a form of) moves things to a whole different legal level.
Here we disagree. Any content, regardless of how created, is worth what people are willing to pay for it. I believe that real world modelled WAM has an appeal that synthetic generations don't, which is why I'm continuing to spend money shooting material and will do for as long as it continues to sell. But that doesn't mean no one should be allowed to sell generated content, rather it's down to me and other real world producers to market our products effectively, rather than trying to ban competition.
bizopp713 said: I was trying to make this a point when I originally called him out. The act itself objectified the models involved. It basically was saying I can take any female I want and make them into a fetish model and they would have no say to it.
Agreed. Though I don't think there's any practical way to stop people doing that in private, other than teaching them to respect others, publishing (which is what Internet posting is a form of) moves things to a whole different legal level.
bizopp713 said:I also believe AI sold at a same price as equal to model produced content is diminishing the value of the models that shoot this content.
Here we disagree. Any content, regardless of how created, is worth what people are willing to pay for it. I believe that real world modelled WAM has an appeal that synthetic generations don't, which is why I'm continuing to spend money shooting material and will do for as long as it continues to sell. But that doesn't mean no one should be allowed to sell generated content, rather it's down to me and other real world producers to market our products effectively, rather than trying to ban competition.
I understand a lot of people can disagree with me and I can understand it. But I am not saying there shouldn't be AI on here and that people shouldn't sell it. I know Thereald sold Non Stop Slop and I even purchased a couple because I wanted to see what could be done with motion AI. But Thereald sold his product for $2 a download.
My issue with Rob at first was he and Al were trying to charge more than produced videos with models. Yes, you can charge what people will pay but it my personal opinion it is a slap in the face to models who did this fetish for us. We have lost so many female wam producers due to them feeling unappreciated. We had many leave due to the misogyny expressed during the Leon/Mostwam issue and we have more that left due to piracy. I hate to think we should disrespect more models because someone says the images they produced sitting in their bedroom for free in one night is worth more than their hard work. I get that this might be my personal opinion and you can call me a bully for it.
But if I hadn't said, that doesn't look like any AI I have seen generated and decided to do some reverse image search then those two would still be selling copyrighted and non consent images. There isn't a reasonable person and one that respects the women in those images that wouldn't know they were doing anything wrong. Especially when arguing in September how as long as the image came from a prompt alone it is not copyrighted.
(I say in one night because I created all the AI images and more on my profile in one or two nights)
bizopp713 said:
My issue with Rob at first was he and Al were trying to charge more than produced videos with models. Yes, you can charge what people will pay but it my personal opinion it is a slap in the face to models who did this fetish for us. We have lost so many female wam producers due to them feeling unappreciated. We had many leave due to the misogyny expressed during the Leon/Mostwam issue and we have more that left due to piracy. I hate to think we should disrespect more models because someone says the images they produced sitting in their bedroom for free in one night is worth more than their hard work. I get that this might be my personal opinion and you can call me a bully for it.
DungeonMasterOne said:
Agreed. Though I don't think there's any practical way to stop people doing that in private, other than teaching them to respect others, publishing (which is what Internet posting is a form of) moves things to a whole different legal level.
Here we disagree. Any content, regardless of how created, is worth what people are willing to pay for it. I believe that real world modelled WAM has an appeal that synthetic generations don't, which is why I'm continuing to spend money shooting material and will do for as long as it continues to sell. But that doesn't mean no one should be allowed to sell generated content, rather it's down to me and other real world producers to market our products effectively, rather than trying to ban competition.
bizopp713 said: I was trying to make this a point when I originally called him out. The act itself objectified the models involved. It basically was saying I can take any female I want and make them into a fetish model and they would have no say to it.
Agreed. Though I don't think there's any practical way to stop people doing that in private, other than teaching them to respect others, publishing (which is what Internet posting is a form of) moves things to a whole different legal level.
bizopp713 said:I also believe AI sold at a same price as equal to model produced content is diminishing the value of the models that shoot this content.
Here we disagree. Any content, regardless of how created, is worth what people are willing to pay for it. I believe that real world modelled WAM has an appeal that synthetic generations don't, which is why I'm continuing to spend money shooting material and will do for as long as it continues to sell. But that doesn't mean no one should be allowed to sell generated content, rather it's down to me and other real world producers to market our products effectively, rather than trying to ban competition.
My issue with Rob at first was he and Al were trying to charge more than produced videos with models. Yes, you can charge what people will pay but it my personal opinion it is a slap in the face to models who did this fetish for us. We have lost so many female wam producers due to them feeling unappreciated. We had many leave due to the misogyny expressed during the Leon/Mostwam issue and we have more that left due to piracy. I hate to think we should disrespect more models because someone says the images they produced sitting in their bedroom for free in one night is worth more than their hard work. I get that this might be my personal opinion and you can call me a bully for it.
Ok, so firstly, I get it. I am absolutely NOT a fan in how the Leon/Mostwam thing went down and feel I made my opinion very clear on it a number of times. I also have mixed emotions on other instances and issue that have unfolded since then. You are never gonna hear a disagreement out of me that there is no room to improve. Yes. We need to get better. No doubt. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point and none of that makes you a bully
BUT
We need to be careful not to conflate the two and also need to be fair in how we do it. Fake content, on its surface, is nothing new here. Manips, CGI, Animations, fictional stories have been around for a while now and we didn't charge in demanding that they change their sales practices or boot them off the site entirely.
Conversely, the concerns of AI shouldn't be dismissed or ignored. AI is dangerously potent and it's capacity to hurt a person's privacy, their career, their image and the health of this forum cannot be understated. I think that is what we are all trying to find out here is a balance between permitting the creative freedoms to make, share and possibly sell this content while still protecting the privacy and image rights of other artists, models, and everyday people who did not consent for their likeness to be used in that manner.
Do I believe fake content should be sold at a premium? Of course not but I also acknowledge that it's not my call to make either. How would I feel if someone told me my work should be lowered based off their feelings of it's worth? No. While I don't consider AI "art", I acknowledge that there was time and in some cases, cost invested in making it so I don't feel restricting pricing just because it's AI is a fair model. If people see the value in it, they will buy it and if not, they won't. It's that simple.
If producers are really that concerned, my suggestion is to learn real filming and lighting techniques and deliver a better product. As the influencer age marches on, the demand of better and better video is going to grow and it has already started to reflect in market prices in gear alone. A RED Komodo cinema camera once sold at 6k less than a year ago is now selling for half that. Full frame mirrorless cameras are below the 1k mark. Cinema grade LUTS are now available for iPhone ProRes for the first time. The list goes on.
So, yeah, we can acknowledge AI and the dangers it presents while still allowing people to use it, share it and potentially sell it. That's why I been banging on about regulating it.
Sorry about the verbose response. LOL
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
I am sorry to the fans and friends of Robby here for Robby's decision to leave, due to this thread, due to decisions he made with PhotoSlop, or other factors.
When I saw PhotoSlop's post, bizopp713's reply, and Robby's reply on Nov-13th, I was shocked. I stayed up until 4AM, on the 14th, reverse searching, reporting, and collecting evidence. I could have waited a week to let this resolve privately, or I could have ignored it. If it was just a few mistakes, I would have let it go. I kept finding more and more examples, and it felt unacceptable that they were trying to sell it. I felt compelled to post this. I realize that it would have been fair to let Robby and PhotoSlop resolve this privately. It would have been discovered anyways when people started seeing a bunch of the posts deleted and vidown videos removed. I do realize I could have approached this better.
I wasn't activate when Robby was a prime producer here, but I did notice when he returned from being away. I rarely replied to his threads, and I didn't say anything bad to him in my replies. I did read a lot of his discussions about ai content. On two of his threads, I saw DungeonMasterOne reply with information about consent and one had linked to the rules about it. He must have been aware of the rules, but maybe they were not understood.
I think PhotoSlop must have been aware rules too. He had one of his posts deleted for violating the rule in September 2023 and created this post:
https://umd.net/forums/ai-pies-are-not-permitted
The rules were explained and discussed there. Since then, he seemed to avoid hinting that the photos were real while continuing to use photos of real women to make ai content.
I didn't think Robby needed to be banned or leave over this. I wanted the content removed and for people to be aware of what happened. I don't think PhotoSlop should be banned either, but he has so many remaining posts that are likely breaking the rule. The rule just states that the offending content will be removed. It does not say that offenders should be banned. I also have to say it was mostly PhotoSlop's posts and just 2 or 3 of Robby's posts that needed to be deleted, along with the humiliation video series on their vidown.
I saw the Humiliation Theater scenes on vidown were removed. I took additional evidence of the preview pics hosted there which reversed image search resulted in matches. It just seemed like that whole series was taking mostly photos of real women to make ai wam videos.
I feel sorry for Robby. He came back this year and was really trying to make something out of this ai content. He must have spent a lot of time on it. Robby I am sorry this happened. In is "See Ya" post I think he referenced to me as a "delusional idiot" but "not lacking intelligence" which I thought was a funny insult and a compliment.
I hope people understand the positive side of the outcome. It could have been better, but it could have been worse if this was caught a different way. He broke a rule and content needed to be deleted. It needed to be stopped from being made any further too. I hope this raised awareness and importance of the rule. Posting non-consensual ai content is not acceptable and needs to be removed, because this content my cause harm and it may violate laws.
When I saw PhotoSlop's post, bizopp713's reply, and Robby's reply on Nov-13th, I was shocked. I stayed up until 4AM, on the 14th, reverse searching, reporting, and collecting evidence. I could have waited a week to let this resolve privately, or I could have ignored it. If it was just a few mistakes, I would have let it go. I kept finding more and more examples, and it felt unacceptable that they were trying to sell it. I felt compelled to post this. I realize that it would have been fair to let Robby and PhotoSlop resolve this privately. It would have been discovered anyways when people started seeing a bunch of the posts deleted and vidown videos removed. I do realize I could have approached this better.
I wasn't activate when Robby was a prime producer here, but I did notice when he returned from being away. I rarely replied to his threads, and I didn't say anything bad to him in my replies. I did read a lot of his discussions about ai content. On two of his threads, I saw DungeonMasterOne reply with information about consent and one had linked to the rules about it. He must have been aware of the rules, but maybe they were not understood.
I think PhotoSlop must have been aware rules too. He had one of his posts deleted for violating the rule in September 2023 and created this post:
https://umd.net/forums/ai-pies-are-not-permitted
The rules were explained and discussed there. Since then, he seemed to avoid hinting that the photos were real while continuing to use photos of real women to make ai content.
I didn't think Robby needed to be banned or leave over this. I wanted the content removed and for people to be aware of what happened. I don't think PhotoSlop should be banned either, but he has so many remaining posts that are likely breaking the rule. The rule just states that the offending content will be removed. It does not say that offenders should be banned. I also have to say it was mostly PhotoSlop's posts and just 2 or 3 of Robby's posts that needed to be deleted, along with the humiliation video series on their vidown.
I saw the Humiliation Theater scenes on vidown were removed. I took additional evidence of the preview pics hosted there which reversed image search resulted in matches. It just seemed like that whole series was taking mostly photos of real women to make ai wam videos.
I feel sorry for Robby. He came back this year and was really trying to make something out of this ai content. He must have spent a lot of time on it. Robby I am sorry this happened. In is "See Ya" post I think he referenced to me as a "delusional idiot" but "not lacking intelligence" which I thought was a funny insult and a compliment.
I hope people understand the positive side of the outcome. It could have been better, but it could have been worse if this was caught a different way. He broke a rule and content needed to be deleted. It needed to be stopped from being made any further too. I hope this raised awareness and importance of the rule. Posting non-consensual ai content is not acceptable and needs to be removed, because this content my cause harm and it may violate laws.
Nostalgic Erotica Prod said:
Ok, so firstly, I get it. I am absolutely NOT a fan in how the Leon/Mostwam thing went down and feel I made my opinion very clear on it a number of times. I also have mixed emotions on other instances and issue that have unfolded since then. You are never gonna hear a disagreement out of me that there is no room to improve. Yes. We need to get better. No doubt. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point and none of that makes you a bully
BUT
We need to be careful not to conflate the two and also need to be fair in how we do it. Fake content, on its surface, is nothing new here. Manips, CGI, Animations, fictional stories have been around for a while now and we didn't charge in demanding that they change their sales practices or boot them off the site entirely.
Conversely, the concerns of AI shouldn't be dismissed or ignored. AI is dangerously potent and it's capacity to hurt a person's privacy, their career, their image and the health of this forum cannot be understated. I think that is what we are all trying to find out here is a balance between permitting the creative freedoms to make, share and possibly sell this content while still protecting the privacy and image rights of other artists, models, and everyday people who did not consent for their likeness to be used in that manner.
Do I believe fake content should be sold at a premium? Of course not but I also acknowledge that it's not my call to make either. How would I feel if someone told me my work should be lowered based off their feelings of it's worth? No. While I don't consider AI "art", I acknowledge that there was time and in some cases, cost invested in making it so I don't feel restricting pricing just because it's AI is a fair model. If people see the value in it, they will buy it and if not, they won't. It's that simple.
If producers are really that concerned, my suggestion is to learn real filming and lighting techniques and deliver a better product. As the influencer age marches on, the demand of better and better video is going to grow and it has already started to reflect in market prices in gear alone. A RED Komodo cinema camera once sold at 6k less than a year ago is now selling for half that. Full frame mirrorless cameras are below the 1k mark. Cinema grade LUTS are now available for iPhone ProRes for the first time. The list goes on.
So, yeah, we can acknowledge AI and the dangers it presents while still allowing people to use it, share it and potentially sell it. That's why I been banging on about regulating it.
Sorry about the verbose response. LOL
bizopp713 said:
My issue with Rob at first was he and Al were trying to charge more than produced videos with models. Yes, you can charge what people will pay but it my personal opinion it is a slap in the face to models who did this fetish for us. We have lost so many female wam producers due to them feeling unappreciated. We had many leave due to the misogyny expressed during the Leon/Mostwam issue and we have more that left due to piracy. I hate to think we should disrespect more models because someone says the images they produced sitting in their bedroom for free in one night is worth more than their hard work. I get that this might be my personal opinion and you can call me a bully for it.
DungeonMasterOne said:
Agreed. Though I don't think there's any practical way to stop people doing that in private, other than teaching them to respect others, publishing (which is what Internet posting is a form of) moves things to a whole different legal level.
Here we disagree. Any content, regardless of how created, is worth what people are willing to pay for it. I believe that real world modelled WAM has an appeal that synthetic generations don't, which is why I'm continuing to spend money shooting material and will do for as long as it continues to sell. But that doesn't mean no one should be allowed to sell generated content, rather it's down to me and other real world producers to market our products effectively, rather than trying to ban competition.
bizopp713 said: I was trying to make this a point when I originally called him out. The act itself objectified the models involved. It basically was saying I can take any female I want and make them into a fetish model and they would have no say to it.
Agreed. Though I don't think there's any practical way to stop people doing that in private, other than teaching them to respect others, publishing (which is what Internet posting is a form of) moves things to a whole different legal level.
bizopp713 said:I also believe AI sold at a same price as equal to model produced content is diminishing the value of the models that shoot this content.
Here we disagree. Any content, regardless of how created, is worth what people are willing to pay for it. I believe that real world modelled WAM has an appeal that synthetic generations don't, which is why I'm continuing to spend money shooting material and will do for as long as it continues to sell. But that doesn't mean no one should be allowed to sell generated content, rather it's down to me and other real world producers to market our products effectively, rather than trying to ban competition.
My issue with Rob at first was he and Al were trying to charge more than produced videos with models. Yes, you can charge what people will pay but it my personal opinion it is a slap in the face to models who did this fetish for us. We have lost so many female wam producers due to them feeling unappreciated. We had many leave due to the misogyny expressed during the Leon/Mostwam issue and we have more that left due to piracy. I hate to think we should disrespect more models because someone says the images they produced sitting in their bedroom for free in one night is worth more than their hard work. I get that this might be my personal opinion and you can call me a bully for it.
Ok, so firstly, I get it. I am absolutely NOT a fan in how the Leon/Mostwam thing went down and feel I made my opinion very clear on it a number of times. I also have mixed emotions on other instances and issue that have unfolded since then. You are never gonna hear a disagreement out of me that there is no room to improve. Yes. We need to get better. No doubt. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point and none of that makes you a bully
BUT
We need to be careful not to conflate the two and also need to be fair in how we do it. Fake content, on its surface, is nothing new here. Manips, CGI, Animations, fictional stories have been around for a while now and we didn't charge in demanding that they change their sales practices or boot them off the site entirely.
Conversely, the concerns of AI shouldn't be dismissed or ignored. AI is dangerously potent and it's capacity to hurt a person's privacy, their career, their image and the health of this forum cannot be understated. I think that is what we are all trying to find out here is a balance between permitting the creative freedoms to make, share and possibly sell this content while still protecting the privacy and image rights of other artists, models, and everyday people who did not consent for their likeness to be used in that manner.
Do I believe fake content should be sold at a premium? Of course not but I also acknowledge that it's not my call to make either. How would I feel if someone told me my work should be lowered based off their feelings of it's worth? No. While I don't consider AI "art", I acknowledge that there was time and in some cases, cost invested in making it so I don't feel restricting pricing just because it's AI is a fair model. If people see the value in it, they will buy it and if not, they won't. It's that simple.
If producers are really that concerned, my suggestion is to learn real filming and lighting techniques and deliver a better product. As the influencer age marches on, the demand of better and better video is going to grow and it has already started to reflect in market prices in gear alone. A RED Komodo cinema camera once sold at 6k less than a year ago is now selling for half that. Full frame mirrorless cameras are below the 1k mark. Cinema grade LUTS are now available for iPhone ProRes for the first time. The list goes on.
So, yeah, we can acknowledge AI and the dangers it presents while still allowing people to use it, share it and potentially sell it. That's why I been banging on about regulating it.
Sorry about the verbose response. LOL
To be clear, I am not comparing what Rob and Al did to what Leon did. I am stating that I spoke to female producers that left during that point, I also spoke to a few female producers who have left due to their product being share and pirated. I don't want this to become another reason for producers to leave.
I agree that the production value for messy content could definitely go up. It is something we have been discussing in my circle. I know there are also a few producers who have been making content for awhile, would love to use AI to make their old materials look better quality. I send the videos I make through AI filters to help correct and enhance the product.
mFeelzGood said: I am sorry to the fans and friends of Robby here for Robby's decision to leave, due to this thread, due to decisions he made with PhotoSlop, or other factors.
When I saw PhotoSlop's post, bizopp713's reply, and Robby's reply on Nov-13th, I was shocked. I stayed up until 4AM, on the 14th, reverse searching, reporting, and collecting evidence. I could have waited a week to let this resolve privately, or I could have ignored it. If it was just a few mistakes, I would have let it go. I kept finding more and more examples, and it felt unacceptable that they were trying to sell it. I felt compelled to post this. I realize that it would have been fair to let Robby and PhotoSlop resolve this privately. It would have been discovered anyways when people started seeing a bunch of the posts deleted and vidown videos removed. I do realize I could have approached this better.
I wasn't activate when Robby was a prime producer here, but I did notice when he returned from being away. I rarely replied to his threads, and I didn't say anything bad to him in my replies. I did read a lot of his discussions about ai content. On two of his threads, I saw DungeonMasterOne reply with information about consent and one had linked to the rules about it. He must have been aware of the rules, but maybe they were not understood.
I think PhotoSlop must have been aware rules too. He had one of his posts deleted for violating the rule in September 2023 and created this post:
https://umd.net/forums/ai-pies-are-not-permitted
The rules were explained and discussed there. Since then, he seemed to avoid hinting that the photos were real while continuing to use photos of real women to make ai content.
I didn't think Robby needed to be banned or leave over this. I wanted the content removed and for people to be aware of what happened. I don't think PhotoSlop should be banned either, but he has so many remaining posts that are likely breaking the rule. The rule just states that the offending content will be removed. It does not say that offenders should be banned. I also have to say it was mostly PhotoSlop's posts and just 2 or 3 of Robby's posts that needed to be deleted, along with the humiliation video series on their vidown.
I saw the Humiliation Theater scenes on vidown were removed. I took additional evidence of the preview pics hosted there which reversed image search resulted in matches. It just seemed like that whole series was taking mostly photos of real women to make ai wam videos.
I feel sorry for Robby. He came back this year and was really trying to make something out of this ai content. He must have spent a lot of time on it. Robby I am sorry this happened. In is "See Ya" post I think he referenced to me as a "delusional idiot" but "not lacking intelligence" which I thought was a funny insult and a compliment.
I hope people understand the positive side of the outcome. It could have been better, but it could have been worse if this was caught a different way. He broke a rule and content needed to be deleted. It needed to be stopped from being made any further too. I hope this raised awareness and importance of the rule. Posting non-consensual ai content is not acceptable and needs to be removed, because this content my cause harm and it may violate laws.
When I saw PhotoSlop's post, bizopp713's reply, and Robby's reply on Nov-13th, I was shocked. I stayed up until 4AM, on the 14th, reverse searching, reporting, and collecting evidence. I could have waited a week to let this resolve privately, or I could have ignored it. If it was just a few mistakes, I would have let it go. I kept finding more and more examples, and it felt unacceptable that they were trying to sell it. I felt compelled to post this. I realize that it would have been fair to let Robby and PhotoSlop resolve this privately. It would have been discovered anyways when people started seeing a bunch of the posts deleted and vidown videos removed. I do realize I could have approached this better.
I wasn't activate when Robby was a prime producer here, but I did notice when he returned from being away. I rarely replied to his threads, and I didn't say anything bad to him in my replies. I did read a lot of his discussions about ai content. On two of his threads, I saw DungeonMasterOne reply with information about consent and one had linked to the rules about it. He must have been aware of the rules, but maybe they were not understood.
I think PhotoSlop must have been aware rules too. He had one of his posts deleted for violating the rule in September 2023 and created this post:
https://umd.net/forums/ai-pies-are-not-permitted
The rules were explained and discussed there. Since then, he seemed to avoid hinting that the photos were real while continuing to use photos of real women to make ai content.
I didn't think Robby needed to be banned or leave over this. I wanted the content removed and for people to be aware of what happened. I don't think PhotoSlop should be banned either, but he has so many remaining posts that are likely breaking the rule. The rule just states that the offending content will be removed. It does not say that offenders should be banned. I also have to say it was mostly PhotoSlop's posts and just 2 or 3 of Robby's posts that needed to be deleted, along with the humiliation video series on their vidown.
I saw the Humiliation Theater scenes on vidown were removed. I took additional evidence of the preview pics hosted there which reversed image search resulted in matches. It just seemed like that whole series was taking mostly photos of real women to make ai wam videos.
I feel sorry for Robby. He came back this year and was really trying to make something out of this ai content. He must have spent a lot of time on it. Robby I am sorry this happened. In is "See Ya" post I think he referenced to me as a "delusional idiot" but "not lacking intelligence" which I thought was a funny insult and a compliment.
I hope people understand the positive side of the outcome. It could have been better, but it could have been worse if this was caught a different way. He broke a rule and content needed to be deleted. It needed to be stopped from being made any further too. I hope this raised awareness and importance of the rule. Posting non-consensual ai content is not acceptable and needs to be removed, because this content my cause harm and it may violate laws.
To be honest, in full transparency, this is not the first instance of a real person's likeness being used on here and I have simply reported it and it has been addressed.
I am not saying what you did was wrong. Quite the opposite. You did the right thing and I think a lot of us appreciate it but maybe the approach could have been different, ya know? Not sure. Like, I am not here to collect the scalps of AI fans but at the same time, I take a serious stance against its abuse. In recent months, a Youtube channel was deleted that hosted content of women being shot in the face that had over 2000 followers. Doesn't sound like much the fact that 2000 men enjoy watching that is kinda disturbing.
Maybe this is a lesson for all of us *shrugs*
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
bizopp713 said:
To be clear, I am not comparing what Rob and Al did to what Leon did. I am stating that I spoke to female producers that left during that point, I also spoke to a few female producers who have left due to their product being share and pirated. I don't want this to become another reason for producers to leave.
I agree that the production value for messy content could definitely go up. It is something we have been discussing in my circle. I know there are also a few producers who have been making content for awhile, would love to use AI to make their old materials look better quality. I send the videos I make through AI filters to help correct and enhance the product.
Nostalgic Erotica Prod said:
Ok, so firstly, I get it. I am absolutely NOT a fan in how the Leon/Mostwam thing went down and feel I made my opinion very clear on it a number of times. I also have mixed emotions on other instances and issue that have unfolded since then. You are never gonna hear a disagreement out of me that there is no room to improve. Yes. We need to get better. No doubt. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point and none of that makes you a bully
BUT
We need to be careful not to conflate the two and also need to be fair in how we do it. Fake content, on its surface, is nothing new here. Manips, CGI, Animations, fictional stories have been around for a while now and we didn't charge in demanding that they change their sales practices or boot them off the site entirely.
Conversely, the concerns of AI shouldn't be dismissed or ignored. AI is dangerously potent and it's capacity to hurt a person's privacy, their career, their image and the health of this forum cannot be understated. I think that is what we are all trying to find out here is a balance between permitting the creative freedoms to make, share and possibly sell this content while still protecting the privacy and image rights of other artists, models, and everyday people who did not consent for their likeness to be used in that manner.
Do I believe fake content should be sold at a premium? Of course not but I also acknowledge that it's not my call to make either. How would I feel if someone told me my work should be lowered based off their feelings of it's worth? No. While I don't consider AI "art", I acknowledge that there was time and in some cases, cost invested in making it so I don't feel restricting pricing just because it's AI is a fair model. If people see the value in it, they will buy it and if not, they won't. It's that simple.
If producers are really that concerned, my suggestion is to learn real filming and lighting techniques and deliver a better product. As the influencer age marches on, the demand of better and better video is going to grow and it has already started to reflect in market prices in gear alone. A RED Komodo cinema camera once sold at 6k less than a year ago is now selling for half that. Full frame mirrorless cameras are below the 1k mark. Cinema grade LUTS are now available for iPhone ProRes for the first time. The list goes on.
So, yeah, we can acknowledge AI and the dangers it presents while still allowing people to use it, share it and potentially sell it. That's why I been banging on about regulating it.
Sorry about the verbose response. LOL
bizopp713 said:
My issue with Rob at first was he and Al were trying to charge more than produced videos with models. Yes, you can charge what people will pay but it my personal opinion it is a slap in the face to models who did this fetish for us. We have lost so many female wam producers due to them feeling unappreciated. We had many leave due to the misogyny expressed during the Leon/Mostwam issue and we have more that left due to piracy. I hate to think we should disrespect more models because someone says the images they produced sitting in their bedroom for free in one night is worth more than their hard work. I get that this might be my personal opinion and you can call me a bully for it.
DungeonMasterOne said:
Agreed. Though I don't think there's any practical way to stop people doing that in private, other than teaching them to respect others, publishing (which is what Internet posting is a form of) moves things to a whole different legal level.
Here we disagree. Any content, regardless of how created, is worth what people are willing to pay for it. I believe that real world modelled WAM has an appeal that synthetic generations don't, which is why I'm continuing to spend money shooting material and will do for as long as it continues to sell. But that doesn't mean no one should be allowed to sell generated content, rather it's down to me and other real world producers to market our products effectively, rather than trying to ban competition.
bizopp713 said: I was trying to make this a point when I originally called him out. The act itself objectified the models involved. It basically was saying I can take any female I want and make them into a fetish model and they would have no say to it.
Agreed. Though I don't think there's any practical way to stop people doing that in private, other than teaching them to respect others, publishing (which is what Internet posting is a form of) moves things to a whole different legal level.
bizopp713 said:I also believe AI sold at a same price as equal to model produced content is diminishing the value of the models that shoot this content.
Here we disagree. Any content, regardless of how created, is worth what people are willing to pay for it. I believe that real world modelled WAM has an appeal that synthetic generations don't, which is why I'm continuing to spend money shooting material and will do for as long as it continues to sell. But that doesn't mean no one should be allowed to sell generated content, rather it's down to me and other real world producers to market our products effectively, rather than trying to ban competition.
My issue with Rob at first was he and Al were trying to charge more than produced videos with models. Yes, you can charge what people will pay but it my personal opinion it is a slap in the face to models who did this fetish for us. We have lost so many female wam producers due to them feeling unappreciated. We had many leave due to the misogyny expressed during the Leon/Mostwam issue and we have more that left due to piracy. I hate to think we should disrespect more models because someone says the images they produced sitting in their bedroom for free in one night is worth more than their hard work. I get that this might be my personal opinion and you can call me a bully for it.
Ok, so firstly, I get it. I am absolutely NOT a fan in how the Leon/Mostwam thing went down and feel I made my opinion very clear on it a number of times. I also have mixed emotions on other instances and issue that have unfolded since then. You are never gonna hear a disagreement out of me that there is no room to improve. Yes. We need to get better. No doubt. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point and none of that makes you a bully
BUT
We need to be careful not to conflate the two and also need to be fair in how we do it. Fake content, on its surface, is nothing new here. Manips, CGI, Animations, fictional stories have been around for a while now and we didn't charge in demanding that they change their sales practices or boot them off the site entirely.
Conversely, the concerns of AI shouldn't be dismissed or ignored. AI is dangerously potent and it's capacity to hurt a person's privacy, their career, their image and the health of this forum cannot be understated. I think that is what we are all trying to find out here is a balance between permitting the creative freedoms to make, share and possibly sell this content while still protecting the privacy and image rights of other artists, models, and everyday people who did not consent for their likeness to be used in that manner.
Do I believe fake content should be sold at a premium? Of course not but I also acknowledge that it's not my call to make either. How would I feel if someone told me my work should be lowered based off their feelings of it's worth? No. While I don't consider AI "art", I acknowledge that there was time and in some cases, cost invested in making it so I don't feel restricting pricing just because it's AI is a fair model. If people see the value in it, they will buy it and if not, they won't. It's that simple.
If producers are really that concerned, my suggestion is to learn real filming and lighting techniques and deliver a better product. As the influencer age marches on, the demand of better and better video is going to grow and it has already started to reflect in market prices in gear alone. A RED Komodo cinema camera once sold at 6k less than a year ago is now selling for half that. Full frame mirrorless cameras are below the 1k mark. Cinema grade LUTS are now available for iPhone ProRes for the first time. The list goes on.
So, yeah, we can acknowledge AI and the dangers it presents while still allowing people to use it, share it and potentially sell it. That's why I been banging on about regulating it.
Sorry about the verbose response. LOL
To be clear, I am not comparing what Rob and Al did to what Leon did. I am stating that I spoke to female producers that left during that point, I also spoke to a few female producers who have left due to their product being share and pirated. I don't want this to become another reason for producers to leave.
I agree that the production value for messy content could definitely go up. It is something we have been discussing in my circle. I know there are also a few producers who have been making content for awhile, would love to use AI to make their old materials look better quality. I send the videos I make through AI filters to help correct and enhance the product.
Nah man, I feel ya! I figured you meant as much but wanted to put a clear line of distinction between the two instances as anything related Leon and Mostwam brings up some pretty powerful emotions and negative feelings and we don't need that here, ya know?
Ai with preexisting video is a toughy. It's just there are many limitations to what it can do to improve an older video.
Clean up some noise? Sure. A slight resolution boost? Maybe. But making a 240p video that was shot on VHS and then transferred to digital anything close to DVD quality? Probably not. There's just not enough data to play with and anything missing, AI tries to fill in the gaps (with absolute failure most times). You can clean it up, and I have many times but unless you have the master, in pristine condition, and it's shot at 480, cleaning up the artifacts and ghosting is about the best you can hope for
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
Thank you DM1 for commenting. There are things in this thread that I think we need to have rulings on. Between this and your thread in Messy, it is clear that there are a lot of people that do not like A.I., but do not want people who use it to leave.
I think we need to adjust the rules with what someone else suggested and treat content shared without consent like children. If a person did not consent to their image, likeness, work being used in a sexual manner we need to have it removed. I think a ruling needs to be made on this issue.
100% This! We do not want to find ourselves in a situation like the U.S. and other governments constantly find themselves in of being too late to the show and trying to play catch up. I think there needs to be clear lines in the sand when it comes to A.I.. I would also LOVE to have a situation where people were not trying to pass off A.I. as being comparable to the hard work others put in. There is too much discounting of the work done by people here. You can argue in favor of A.I. and it's uses without negating the hard work that goes into producing sets and modeling sets. If there was no skill or hard work required to make the content that people here make, everyone would do it and there would be very little market for the content. Unlike A.I., you cannot spend a weekend watching YouTube guides and then try it yourself and make the same quality of content that you see here. I do not do anywhere near the amount of video editing that is done by people here and I find it annoying to have to edit out commercials in shows I record even though it is simple. I would hate to learn those skills and get good at editing just to be told that my effort was just the same as an A.I. generated lower quality video.
I think we need to adjust the rules with what someone else suggested and treat content shared without consent like children. If a person did not consent to their image, likeness, work being used in a sexual manner we need to have it removed. I think a ruling needs to be made on this issue.
Nostalgic Erotica Prod said:Conversely, the concerns of AI shouldn't be dismissed or ignored. AI is dangerously potent and it's capacity to hurt a person's privacy, their career, their image and the health of this forum cannot be understated. I think that is what we are all trying to find out here is a balance between permitting the creative freedoms to make, share and possibly sell this content while still protecting the privacy and image rights of other artists, models, and everyday people who did not consent for their likeness to be used in that manner.
100% This! We do not want to find ourselves in a situation like the U.S. and other governments constantly find themselves in of being too late to the show and trying to play catch up. I think there needs to be clear lines in the sand when it comes to A.I.. I would also LOVE to have a situation where people were not trying to pass off A.I. as being comparable to the hard work others put in. There is too much discounting of the work done by people here. You can argue in favor of A.I. and it's uses without negating the hard work that goes into producing sets and modeling sets. If there was no skill or hard work required to make the content that people here make, everyone would do it and there would be very little market for the content. Unlike A.I., you cannot spend a weekend watching YouTube guides and then try it yourself and make the same quality of content that you see here. I do not do anywhere near the amount of video editing that is done by people here and I find it annoying to have to edit out commercials in shows I record even though it is simple. I would hate to learn those skills and get good at editing just to be told that my effort was just the same as an A.I. generated lower quality video.
Robby, before you go, please take this exit survey:
Describe in 10 words or less how you would improve UMD.
Describe in 100 words or less how you would improve yourself.
Would you recommend UMD to a friend if you had one?
Have you considered the many benefits of becoming a basement pie slave?
If I were to post a video of me getting pied while singing "Baby Come Back" with the name "Robby" instead of "Baby", would that make you more or less likely to start a burner account?
Who put the lamma in the wammalammadingdong?
Describe in 10 words or less how you would improve UMD.
Describe in 100 words or less how you would improve yourself.
Would you recommend UMD to a friend if you had one?
Have you considered the many benefits of becoming a basement pie slave?
If I were to post a video of me getting pied while singing "Baby Come Back" with the name "Robby" instead of "Baby", would that make you more or less likely to start a burner account?
Who put the lamma in the wammalammadingdong?
Holy shit. I leave for a few months and I come back to THIS shit?
Some people here have to do their due diligence. With the exception of Jessica Alba showing up on a video compilation because I did not know who she was, EVERY models picture has been paid for and is legit to use.
Again, before you accuse me or Robby of anything do some fucking research.
Forget it. I don't need the drama.
You can call me,
Al
And now you can't me a fucking thing because I am OUT of here.
Some people here have to do their due diligence. With the exception of Jessica Alba showing up on a video compilation because I did not know who she was, EVERY models picture has been paid for and is legit to use.
Again, before you accuse me or Robby of anything do some fucking research.
Forget it. I don't need the drama.
You can call me,
Al
And now you can't me a fucking thing because I am OUT of here.
PhotoSlop said: Some people here have to do their due diligence. With the exception of Jessica Alba showing up on a video compilation because I did not know who she was, EVERY models picture has been paid for and is legit to use.
That feels like careful wording. I'm not sure what the "due diligence" is supposed to involve, but I'm wondering about the UMD policy on stock photos. E.g. iStockPhoto says that if you pay for a licence then you're allowed to modify their photos, including with AI:
https://www.istockphoto.com/faq/using-files#photos
Does that count as consenting for WAM content, if the model has never even heard of the UMD?
(I know that Photoslop has deleted his account, but this is a more general question for MessMaster.)
flank said:
That feels like careful wording. I'm not sure what the "due diligence" is supposed to involve, but I'm wondering about the UMD policy on stock photos. E.g. iStockPhoto says that if you pay for a licence then you're allowed to modify their photos, including with AI:
https://www.istockphoto.com/faq/using-files#photos
Does that count as consenting for WAM content, if the model has never even heard of the UMD?
(I know that Photoslop has deleted his account, but this is a more general question for MessMaster.)
PhotoSlop said: Some people here have to do their due diligence. With the exception of Jessica Alba showing up on a video compilation because I did not know who she was, EVERY models picture has been paid for and is legit to use.
That feels like careful wording. I'm not sure what the "due diligence" is supposed to involve, but I'm wondering about the UMD policy on stock photos. E.g. iStockPhoto says that if you pay for a licence then you're allowed to modify their photos, including with AI:
https://www.istockphoto.com/faq/using-files#photos
Does that count as consenting for WAM content, if the model has never even heard of the UMD?
(I know that Photoslop has deleted his account, but this is a more general question for MessMaster.)
See Istockphoto's terms of use for their licensed products. This will be pretty much universal anywhere you look.
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
 Love you, too |
Sponsors
To avoid content being blocked due to your local laws, please verify your age ?
Sponsors
Design & Code ©1998-2026 Loverbuns, LLC 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
Epoch Billing Support Log In