|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"Producer caught selling nonconsensual AI wam"
PhotoSlop & RobbyWLP have been using photos of real women to make AI wam content to sell.
Uploading AI images and videos of the likeness of a person without their consent is against the site rules. The rule is here:
https://umd.net/termsofservice/#deep_fakes
There are a few ways to create AI images of the likeness of a women without her consent. One way is by training a model on existing photos to generate new images. Another way is to take a photo and use various AI tools to add wam to it or make it into a wam video. This is an example of the latter.
The photos sources can be found with reverse image search. They are often taken from shopping websites, and are photos of professional fashion models. I doubt the women in any of these photos have given the producer consent to use their photo to make fetish content to sell. I also doubt that they have copyright permission to use the photos.
Screenshot evidence sourced from:
https://umd.net/forums/a-photoslop-glam-wam-coming-to-a-vid-nea
https://umd.net/forums/wam-humiliation-theater--volume-8-now-u
https://wammalamapie.com/cgi/autogal.pl?vidnum=tws-51-0050
https://umd.net/videos/wam-5-humiliation-preview
I reported a lot of it. There are a lot more. I took a few more screenshots. A large amount of their content is clips created from photos of real women using a tool like Kling to make them messy.
I am not trying to be a jerk, but this is against the rules. It is also getting into territory of breaking laws. It also feels wrong. So please don't get mad at me for reporting the content and causing it to get deleted.
Uploading AI images and videos of the likeness of a person without their consent is against the site rules. The rule is here:
If you upload media featuring the likeness of a real person in a fantasy scenario, that person must be you, your model, or someone who has given consent to use their likeness. We will remove any uploaded media that we find uses a person's likeness without their consent, regardless of whether they're a celebrity or not. At this time we are agnostic about linking to or posting about such content on other web sites, but we may disallow that in the future.
https://umd.net/termsofservice/#deep_fakes
There are a few ways to create AI images of the likeness of a women without her consent. One way is by training a model on existing photos to generate new images. Another way is to take a photo and use various AI tools to add wam to it or make it into a wam video. This is an example of the latter.
The photos sources can be found with reverse image search. They are often taken from shopping websites, and are photos of professional fashion models. I doubt the women in any of these photos have given the producer consent to use their photo to make fetish content to sell. I also doubt that they have copyright permission to use the photos.
Screenshot evidence sourced from:
https://umd.net/forums/a-photoslop-glam-wam-coming-to-a-vid-nea
https://umd.net/forums/wam-humiliation-theater--volume-8-now-u
https://wammalamapie.com/cgi/autogal.pl?vidnum=tws-51-0050
https://umd.net/videos/wam-5-humiliation-preview
I reported a lot of it. There are a lot more. I took a few more screenshots. A large amount of their content is clips created from photos of real women using a tool like Kling to make them messy.
I am not trying to be a jerk, but this is against the rules. It is also getting into territory of breaking laws. It also feels wrong. So please don't get mad at me for reporting the content and causing it to get deleted.
Nothing wrong with the message, I agree that it is illegal to use someone's likeness without consent, and to do it for porn is deepfaking. You are right, the material should be removed.
I would question whether the producers should be named without a fair hearing or chance to take it down first with a quick apology, there is no need for shaming them if it's a genuine mistake, or it's promptly removed and the mistake not made again.
Just a thought, I am sure other folks have no problem with this.
I would question whether the producers should be named without a fair hearing or chance to take it down first with a quick apology, there is no need for shaming them if it's a genuine mistake, or it's promptly removed and the mistake not made again.
Just a thought, I am sure other folks have no problem with this.
Silver_sea said: Nothing wrong with the message, I agree that it is illegal to use someone's likeness without consent, and to do it for porn is deepfaking. You are right, the material should be removed.
I would question whether the producers should be named without a fair hearing or chance to take it down first with a quick apology, there is no need for shaming them if it's a genuine mistake, or it's promptly removed and the mistake not made again.
Just a thought, I am sure other folks have no problem with this.
I would question whether the producers should be named without a fair hearing or chance to take it down first with a quick apology, there is no need for shaming them if it's a genuine mistake, or it's promptly removed and the mistake not made again.
Just a thought, I am sure other folks have no problem with this.
If you haven't seen the thread, instead of an apology or the individual removing the materials themself, the admins had to take down the link and photos. Instead the person whose store it is is lashing out. If the individual was truly apologetic the imagery would no longer be available on vidown but it is still up. The individual thinks they should be able to retain the funds they made on the illegal content.
There needs to be repercussions for actions or else what stops someone from doing it in the future. This is clearly the mostwam situation all over again where Messmaster is going to force the community to make him act instead of doing the right thing from the beginning.
11/14/25, 2:08pm: Mostwam was not removed due to pressure from the community. He was off-boarded as soon as we learned what was going on, and that took two days because he was the largest producer here. If you have questions then please ask them instead of trying to pick an old scab.
It is absolutely against the rules for this shit. That is something that a lot of people on both the AI ok and the AI not ok agree on, you must have consent. This is skirting the line of being revenge porn.
But if they have permission from the model, or a release that covers the use of AI, then I see nothing wrong. Outside of my objections to AI.
But if they have permission from the model, or a release that covers the use of AI, then I see nothing wrong. Outside of my objections to AI.
dalamar666 said: It is absolutely against the rules for this shit. That is something that a lot of people on both the AI ok and the AI not ok agree on, you must have consent. This is skirting the line of being revenge porn.
But if they have permission from the model, or a release that covers the use of AI, then I see nothing wrong. Outside of my objections to AI.
But if they have permission from the model, or a release that covers the use of AI, then I see nothing wrong. Outside of my objections to AI.
Under the law I think it falls under the same law as revenge porn.
 Love you, too |
|
Love you, too |
I'll be honest, I don't like the direction this is going and find it hugely disturbing that anyone finds it acceptable.
Likewise, I find the fact that it is acceptable to generate and share celebrity fetish content as long as it's hosted offsite quite distasteful.
https://umd.net/groups/another-grok-video--paint-custard-formal
Putting the quality of the clips which are to be frank aren't great, to one side for a minute, the opportunity and ease to create this content is going to accelerate quickly and I think UMD's policy either isn't fit for purpose or there is a desire to turn a blind eye.
To those "Creators" I've a challenge. Instead of grabbing the nearest picture as a starting image and a boilerplate prompt. Try something new, the technology exists to train your own character models. Something that is unique and individual. Then, train a wam model to apply character to anything you'd like.
If that's too difficult, you can always create a fictional cameo character on Sora2 instead.
Likewise, I find the fact that it is acceptable to generate and share celebrity fetish content as long as it's hosted offsite quite distasteful.
https://umd.net/groups/another-grok-video--paint-custard-formal
Putting the quality of the clips which are to be frank aren't great, to one side for a minute, the opportunity and ease to create this content is going to accelerate quickly and I think UMD's policy either isn't fit for purpose or there is a desire to turn a blind eye.
To those "Creators" I've a challenge. Instead of grabbing the nearest picture as a starting image and a boilerplate prompt. Try something new, the technology exists to train your own character models. Something that is unique and individual. Then, train a wam model to apply character to anything you'd like.
If that's too difficult, you can always create a fictional cameo character on Sora2 instead.
bizopp713 said:Under the law I think it falls under the same law as revenge porn.
I don't want to steer this in the wrong direction or sideline this discussion. Your first picture from Google is wrong. A company made an AI stand up special of George Carlin that they receive payment from in the form of ad revenue that was not authorized by his estate.
Caught? Doesn't look like he was hiding it. Robby isn't a dick and has been here a long time, I don't think he was maliciously "rule breaking". Remove it, provide a warning, sure fine. Send a message to MM and he can review with Robby and take action.
AI is going to be a problem for years to come. It's entirely trained off of other images. You could put in general prompts and end up with an image that looks close enough to someone without actually specifying in the prompt.
So unless people want to check every images for what prompts where used, we should probably just ban AI content outright.
AI is going to be a problem for years to come. It's entirely trained off of other images. You could put in general prompts and end up with an image that looks close enough to someone without actually specifying in the prompt.
So unless people want to check every images for what prompts where used, we should probably just ban AI content outright.
Damn fool of a tuber
bizopp713 said:
Under the law I think it falls under the same law as revenge porn.
dalamar666 said: It is absolutely against the rules for this shit. That is something that a lot of people on both the AI ok and the AI not ok agree on, you must have consent. This is skirting the line of being revenge porn.
But if they have permission from the model, or a release that covers the use of AI, then I see nothing wrong. Outside of my objections to AI.
But if they have permission from the model, or a release that covers the use of AI, then I see nothing wrong. Outside of my objections to AI.
Under the law I think it falls under the same law as revenge porn.
It is exactly under the same laws as revenge porn and has been a part of law in Massachusetts and RI (among others) since 2020.
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
Silver_sea said: Nothing wrong with the message, I agree that it is illegal to use someone's likeness without consent, and to do it for porn is deepfaking. You are right, the material should be removed.
I would question whether the producers should be named without a fair hearing or chance to take it down first with a quick apology, there is no need for shaming them if it's a genuine mistake, or it's promptly removed and the mistake not made again.
Just a thought, I am sure other folks have no problem with this.
I would question whether the producers should be named without a fair hearing or chance to take it down first with a quick apology, there is no need for shaming them if it's a genuine mistake, or it's promptly removed and the mistake not made again.
Just a thought, I am sure other folks have no problem with this.
Screw that. The utter and blatant use of someone's likeness without their permission is one thing but to place it in a sexual context that they never consented to is a violation. Full stop. We are not weighing this by other people's "thoughts" on this. It is the fact that it's unethical, wrong and depending on the context, illegal.
It's honestly really tiring and embarrassing to see how morally flexible people can be as long as they can get their fix on content.
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
PotatomanK said: Caught? Doesn't look like he was hiding it. Robby isn't a dick and has been here a long time, I don't think he was maliciously "rule breaking". Remove it, provide a warning, sure fine. Send a message to MM and he can review with Robby and take action.
AI is going to be a problem for years to come. It's entirely trained off of other images. You could put in general prompts and end up with an image that looks close enough to someone without actually specifying in the prompt.
So unless people want to check every images for what prompts where used, we should probably just ban AI content outright.
AI is going to be a problem for years to come. It's entirely trained off of other images. You could put in general prompts and end up with an image that looks close enough to someone without actually specifying in the prompt.
So unless people want to check every images for what prompts where used, we should probably just ban AI content outright.
You think Rob apologized to the community when he got called out. No, he firs said thanks for the advice moving forward in a condescending way then he blamed AI and scapegoated any responsibility. Even worse he scapegoated the community sayin he just AI images people on here sent him. (All this was on a post that was taken down) The funds from the unlawful act went through his store and yet he claimed it is no one's business what they do with the proceeds of the unlawful act. His partner has been silent. You really believe he didn't know that it was wrong to use copyrighted photos without the consent of the model? That is nieve. Rob claimed he created AI work and sold it to AI for $.25 as he bragged. You can't claim it isn't you when you admit to creating images he knew AI was gonna sell.
messg said: I'll be honest, I don't like the direction this is going and find it hugely disturbing that anyone finds it acceptable.
Likewise, I find the fact that it is acceptable to generate and share celebrity fetish content as long as it's hosted offsite quite distasteful.
https://umd.net/groups/another-grok-video--paint-custard-formal
Likewise, I find the fact that it is acceptable to generate and share celebrity fetish content as long as it's hosted offsite quite distasteful.
https://umd.net/groups/another-grok-video--paint-custard-formal
All this^. To say it's not permitted but in the same breath say "as long as it's hosted offsite" is sending the wrong message. You either are for someone's likeness being used in that manner without their consent or you are not. Can't have it both ways.
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
Nostalgic Erotica Prod said:
All this^. To say it's not permitted but in the same breath say "as long as it's hosted offsite" is sending the wrong message. You either are for someone's likeness being used in that manner without their consent or you are not. Can't have it both ways.
messg said: I'll be honest, I don't like the direction this is going and find it hugely disturbing that anyone finds it acceptable.
Likewise, I find the fact that it is acceptable to generate and share celebrity fetish content as long as it's hosted offsite quite distasteful.
https://umd.net/groups/another-grok-video--paint-custard-formal
Likewise, I find the fact that it is acceptable to generate and share celebrity fetish content as long as it's hosted offsite quite distasteful.
https://umd.net/groups/another-grok-video--paint-custard-formal
All this^. To say it's not permitted but in the same breath say "as long as it's hosted offsite" is sending the wrong message. You either are for someone's likeness being used in that manner without their consent or you are not. Can't have it both ways.
Agreed. If someone posts anything referencing a copyrighten program then MM takes it down. He blocks material from multiple genres and producers advertising offsite. And there are times the links are not unlawful or pirating. Yet he allows the links to continue to exist on this forum even though the product it is linked to is illegal. It should be said that Rob claimed he's met and talked to MM multiple times. Clearly their is favoritism here.
Also MM says if you know there is reportable issue in Photoslop's videos just report them. There is copyrighten material used without the model's consent in every one of his videos and no report option. At the same time Vidown and it's owner is getting more and more responsibile the longer he takes to act.
Silver_sea said: Nothing wrong with the message, I agree that it is illegal to use someone's likeness without consent, and to do it for porn is deepfaking. You are right, the material should be removed.
I would question whether the producers should be named without a fair hearing or chance to take it down first with a quick apology, there is no need for shaming them if it's a genuine mistake, or it's promptly removed and the mistake not made again.
Just a thought, I am sure other folks have no problem with this.
I would question whether the producers should be named without a fair hearing or chance to take it down first with a quick apology, there is no need for shaming them if it's a genuine mistake, or it's promptly removed and the mistake not made again.
Just a thought, I am sure other folks have no problem with this.
I think it's better to be direct with who you are talking about than start another vague "people are misbehaving" thread.
There is no way to use someone's likeness accidentally like this when you can see that the starting frame of the video is an exact match with an existing photo - there is no way this could be a 'genuine mistake'.
The way people should be making AI content is to 100% base it on a text prompt without any images or references to real people. It's very easy to make sure you are doing this - you just use text-to-video, or you just use text-to-image and then use that image to make image-to-video. And then if you make a Lora, you only train it using the images or videos that you made in that way. The lazy way to do it, which I see a lot of on YouTube, is to take a photo of a real person and chuck it into Kling.
dalamar666 said:
I don't want to steer this in the wrong direction or sideline this discussion. Your first picture from Google is wrong. A company made an AI stand up special of George Carlin that they receive payment from in the form of ad revenue that was not authorized by his estate.
bizopp713 said:Under the law I think it falls under the same law as revenge porn.
I don't want to steer this in the wrong direction or sideline this discussion. Your first picture from Google is wrong. A company made an AI stand up special of George Carlin that they receive payment from in the form of ad revenue that was not authorized by his estate.
You need to do a little more research on your own point. https://variety.com/2024/biz/news/george-carlin-ai-impersonation-lawsuit-settlement-1235958396/
thereald said:
I think it's better to be direct with who you are talking about than start another vague "people are misbehaving" thread.
Silver_sea said: Nothing wrong with the message, I agree that it is illegal to use someone's likeness without consent, and to do it for porn is deepfaking. You are right, the material should be removed.
I would question whether the producers should be named without a fair hearing or chance to take it down first with a quick apology, there is no need for shaming them if it's a genuine mistake, or it's promptly removed and the mistake not made again.
Just a thought, I am sure other folks have no problem with this.
I would question whether the producers should be named without a fair hearing or chance to take it down first with a quick apology, there is no need for shaming them if it's a genuine mistake, or it's promptly removed and the mistake not made again.
Just a thought, I am sure other folks have no problem with this.
I think it's better to be direct with who you are talking about than start another vague "people are misbehaving" thread.
The name of the 2 individuals is at the beginning of this post. There was a post taken down last night in which one of the called out parties lashed out and never apologized and never offered to make the situation right. In fact this videos are still up in Vidown in a store under his name.
There is no way to use someone's likeness accidentally like this when you can see that the starting frame of the video is an exact match with an existing photo - there is no way this could be a 'genuine mistake'.
The way people should be making AI content is to 100% base it on a text prompt without any images or references to real people. It's very easy to make sure you are doing this - you just use text-to-video, or you just use text-to-image and then use that image to make image-to-video. And then if you make a Lora, you only train it using the images or videos that you made in that way. The lazy way to do it, which I see a lot of on YouTube, is to take a photo of a real person and chuck it into Kling.
I have dappled in AI making original content and even while talking to a Model/producer last night I showed her what could be done with her modeling images with her permission. Keira posted them on her IG last night. I would never try to sell images created with model's likeness even with her permission.
bizopp713 said:
Agreed. If someone posts anything referencing a copyrighten program then MM takes it down. He blocks material from multiple genres and producers advertising offsite. And there are times the links are not unlawful or pirating. Yet he allows the links to continue to exist on this forum even though the product it is linked to is illegal. It should be said that Rob claimed he's met and talked to MM multiple times. Clearly their is favoritism here.
Nostalgic Erotica Prod said:
All this^. To say it's not permitted but in the same breath say "as long as it's hosted offsite" is sending the wrong message. You either are for someone's likeness being used in that manner without their consent or you are not. Can't have it both ways.
messg said: I'll be honest, I don't like the direction this is going and find it hugely disturbing that anyone finds it acceptable.
Likewise, I find the fact that it is acceptable to generate and share celebrity fetish content as long as it's hosted offsite quite distasteful.
https://umd.net/groups/another-grok-video--paint-custard-formal
Likewise, I find the fact that it is acceptable to generate and share celebrity fetish content as long as it's hosted offsite quite distasteful.
https://umd.net/groups/another-grok-video--paint-custard-formal
All this^. To say it's not permitted but in the same breath say "as long as it's hosted offsite" is sending the wrong message. You either are for someone's likeness being used in that manner without their consent or you are not. Can't have it both ways.
Agreed. If someone posts anything referencing a copyrighten program then MM takes it down. He blocks material from multiple genres and producers advertising offsite. And there are times the links are not unlawful or pirating. Yet he allows the links to continue to exist on this forum even though the product it is linked to is illegal. It should be said that Rob claimed he's met and talked to MM multiple times. Clearly their is favoritism here.
I been saying time and time again; "We are not ready for AI", "It's too soon", "We are not mature enough for the responsibility AI demands", etc. This is why so I will say it one more time, WE ARE NOT READY FOR AI!
Sorry, but when it comes to either listening to our dicks or listening to our brains, we have a pretty poor track record here. Don't believe me? Look at the catfish rate around these parts.
I am not sure if there is favoritism or not and I don't like to presume. I will say that it's pretty hypocritical and counterproductive to make a ruling against non consensual WAM while still permitting them to host and advertise the same prohibited content here just because it's on Youtube. People are never going to get it right when you are sending mixed messages like that. Consent is consent. It's either there or it is not.
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
messg said: I'll be honest, I don't like the direction this is going and find it hugely disturbing that anyone finds it acceptable.
Likewise, I find the fact that it is acceptable to generate and share celebrity fetish content as long as it's hosted offsite quite distasteful.
https://umd.net/groups/another-grok-video--paint-custard-formal
Putting the quality of the clips which are to be frank aren't great, to one side for a minute, the opportunity and ease to create this content is going to accelerate quickly and I think UMD's policy either isn't fit for purpose or there is a desire to turn a blind eye.
Likewise, I find the fact that it is acceptable to generate and share celebrity fetish content as long as it's hosted offsite quite distasteful.
https://umd.net/groups/another-grok-video--paint-custard-formal
Putting the quality of the clips which are to be frank aren't great, to one side for a minute, the opportunity and ease to create this content is going to accelerate quickly and I think UMD's policy either isn't fit for purpose or there is a desire to turn a blind eye.
I had a feeling you were the one to report this. I had a thread removed by an admin several days ago only for it to be restored a few hours later by Messmaster who said "Hey, sorry an admin errantly erased your post. It wasn't actually against our rules so I brought it back"
I therefore posted another video as Messmaster said this wasn't in violation of any rules. I'm obviously not going to post content that breaks the rules.
Also, despite you twice claiming the videos are "poor quality" (to which I disagree - I didn't much like the AI stills you posted but I didn't feel the need to comment. I think these videos are incredibly good), I am posting these for free for people to enjoy. My channel isn't monetised, people are able to watch the clips or not watch the clips. Sub to my channel or not sub to my channel.
You appear to be trying to control what people look at, watch or enjoy.
Now, I'm happy to have a conversation about whether making AI vids of celebrities getting messy is morally dubious or not, but I guess if we go down that route we'll also have to look at banning text and stories that feature celebrities in imaginary situations as well.
jo_yo said: Also, despite you twice claiming the videos are "poor quality" (to which I disagree - I didn't much like the AI stills you posted but I didn't feel the need to comment. I think these videos are incredibly good), I am posting these for free for people to enjoy. My channel isn't monetised, people are able to watch the clips or not watch the clips. Sub to my channel or not sub to my channel.
I'm sure that people enjoy seeing a fake Taylor Swift slowly pour custard onto a fake Angelina Jolie, but I have to agree with messg that these clips aren't particularly good quality.
They might have been impressive if you showed these to people a year ago, but there is nothing new about these clips. The flow of the liquid is incoherent, with more liquid being poured from a ladle than it should be able to hold. The liquid doesn't splash, dollop or drip convincingly. In a few of the clips the two women appear to have their hands move through each other in an awkward manner while the bowl is magically suspended in mid air. Proportions and perspective are off, and motion is stilted and awkward, with a general sense of things being in slow motion, and there is a lack of any emotion or reaction from "Angelina" as custard flows over her face.
More important than any of this though, is that it is immoral to publish fetish material of real people without their consent. If I'd seen it before messg reported it, I'd have reported it too,
jo_yo said:
I had a feeling you were the one to report this. I had a thread removed by an admin several days ago only for it to be restored a few hours later by Messmaster who said "Hey, sorry an admin errantly erased your post. It wasn't actually against our rules so I brought it back"
I therefore posted another video as Messmaster said this wasn't in violation of any rules. I'm obviously not going to post content that breaks the rules.
Also, despite you twice claiming the videos are "poor quality" (to which I disagree - I didn't much like the AI stills you posted but I didn't feel the need to comment. I think these videos are incredibly good), I am posting these for free for people to enjoy. My channel isn't monetised, people are able to watch the clips or not watch the clips. Sub to my channel or not sub to my channel.
You appear to be trying to control what people look at, watch or enjoy.
Now, I'm happy to have a conversation about whether making AI vids of celebrities getting messy is morally dubious or not, but I guess if we go down that route we'll also have to look at banning text and stories that feature celebrities in imaginary situations as well.
messg said: I'll be honest, I don't like the direction this is going and find it hugely disturbing that anyone finds it acceptable.
Likewise, I find the fact that it is acceptable to generate and share celebrity fetish content as long as it's hosted offsite quite distasteful.
https://umd.net/groups/another-grok-video--paint-custard-formal
Putting the quality of the clips which are to be frank aren't great, to one side for a minute, the opportunity and ease to create this content is going to accelerate quickly and I think UMD's policy either isn't fit for purpose or there is a desire to turn a blind eye.
Likewise, I find the fact that it is acceptable to generate and share celebrity fetish content as long as it's hosted offsite quite distasteful.
https://umd.net/groups/another-grok-video--paint-custard-formal
Putting the quality of the clips which are to be frank aren't great, to one side for a minute, the opportunity and ease to create this content is going to accelerate quickly and I think UMD's policy either isn't fit for purpose or there is a desire to turn a blind eye.
I had a feeling you were the one to report this. I had a thread removed by an admin several days ago only for it to be restored a few hours later by Messmaster who said "Hey, sorry an admin errantly erased your post. It wasn't actually against our rules so I brought it back"
I therefore posted another video as Messmaster said this wasn't in violation of any rules. I'm obviously not going to post content that breaks the rules.
Also, despite you twice claiming the videos are "poor quality" (to which I disagree - I didn't much like the AI stills you posted but I didn't feel the need to comment. I think these videos are incredibly good), I am posting these for free for people to enjoy. My channel isn't monetised, people are able to watch the clips or not watch the clips. Sub to my channel or not sub to my channel.
You appear to be trying to control what people look at, watch or enjoy.
Now, I'm happy to have a conversation about whether making AI vids of celebrities getting messy is morally dubious or not, but I guess if we go down that route we'll also have to look at banning text and stories that feature celebrities in imaginary situations as well.
I'm afraid, you've gone down the wrong path of assumptions. I'm afraid you've upset someone else with the previous thread. I generally take the stance if I don't like, I don't comment and wouldn't have had they not been celebrity related. As I said in my first post, "quality aside" but you asked for more specifics so I gave you my opinion. That wasn't the reason for my post though, I find the concept of generating and posting celebrity or non consensual deepfakes deeply wrong. I also find the current policy of UMD is somewhat lacking and deferring the risk by saying if it's hosted offsite, it's not a concern.
*Edit*
I should also add that whilst most of images and video AI generated WAM is generally quite poor currently, I don't think this will be for much longer. Sora2 is leaps ahead of VEO3 and grok and it'd be foolish think they won't improve fast. Whilst I disagree with the strict guardrails on Sora2, I understand the reasons and also the issue with allowing non-consented cameos.
thereald said:
I'm sure that people enjoy seeing a fake Taylor Swift slowly pour custard onto a fake Angelina Jolie, but I have to agree with messg that these clips aren't particularly good quality.
They might have been impressive if you showed these to people a year ago, but there is nothing new about these clips. The flow of the liquid is incoherent, with more liquid being poured from a ladle than it should be able to hold. The liquid doesn't splash, dollop or drip convincingly. In a few of the clips the two women appear to have their hands move through each other in an awkward manner while the bowl is magically suspended in mid air. Proportions and perspective are off, and motion is stilted and awkward, with a general sense of things being in slow motion, and there is a lack of any emotion or reaction from "Angelina" as custard flows over her face.
More important than any of this though, is that it is immoral to publish fetish material of real people without their consent. If I'd seen it before messg reported it, I'd have reported it too,
jo_yo said: Also, despite you twice claiming the videos are "poor quality" (to which I disagree - I didn't much like the AI stills you posted but I didn't feel the need to comment. I think these videos are incredibly good), I am posting these for free for people to enjoy. My channel isn't monetised, people are able to watch the clips or not watch the clips. Sub to my channel or not sub to my channel.
I'm sure that people enjoy seeing a fake Taylor Swift slowly pour custard onto a fake Angelina Jolie, but I have to agree with messg that these clips aren't particularly good quality.
They might have been impressive if you showed these to people a year ago, but there is nothing new about these clips. The flow of the liquid is incoherent, with more liquid being poured from a ladle than it should be able to hold. The liquid doesn't splash, dollop or drip convincingly. In a few of the clips the two women appear to have their hands move through each other in an awkward manner while the bowl is magically suspended in mid air. Proportions and perspective are off, and motion is stilted and awkward, with a general sense of things being in slow motion, and there is a lack of any emotion or reaction from "Angelina" as custard flows over her face.
More important than any of this though, is that it is immoral to publish fetish material of real people without their consent. If I'd seen it before messg reported it, I'd have reported it too,
We should not be showing celebrities in videos anyway. That is breaking the deep fake rule. Also are you telling me that the person creating those clips used a verbal prompt to get an exact image of Taylor swift and angelina Jolie. I doubt it. Like this situation I am guessing images of the celebrities were used.
As a producer, I'm seeing new new contracts that producers want models to sign and tucked away in the fine print is authorizing to use their likeness in perpetuity. What this means is some producers want to right to create AI based on the real models they hire, and there are warnings about this going out in the model community.
jo_yo said:
Now, I'm happy to have a conversation about whether making AI vids of celebrities getting messy is morally dubious or not, but I guess if we go down that route we'll also have to look at banning text and stories that feature celebrities in imaginary situations as well.
messg said: I'll be honest, I don't like the direction this is going and find it hugely disturbing that anyone finds it acceptable.
Likewise, I find the fact that it is acceptable to generate and share celebrity fetish content as long as it's hosted offsite quite distasteful.
https://umd.net/groups/another-grok-video--paint-custard-formal
Putting the quality of the clips which are to be frank aren't great, to one side for a minute, the opportunity and ease to create this content is going to accelerate quickly and I think UMD's policy either isn't fit for purpose or there is a desire to turn a blind eye.
Likewise, I find the fact that it is acceptable to generate and share celebrity fetish content as long as it's hosted offsite quite distasteful.
https://umd.net/groups/another-grok-video--paint-custard-formal
Putting the quality of the clips which are to be frank aren't great, to one side for a minute, the opportunity and ease to create this content is going to accelerate quickly and I think UMD's policy either isn't fit for purpose or there is a desire to turn a blind eye.
Now, I'm happy to have a conversation about whether making AI vids of celebrities getting messy is morally dubious or not, but I guess if we go down that route we'll also have to look at banning text and stories that feature celebrities in imaginary situations as well.
There is no discussion to be had. It's just wrong to use another person's likeness in that manner without their consent. That's why it's not permitted here. If you have a hard time understanding that, maybe kink/fetish isn't for you because consent is key to it.
Also, the novelization of a person's name is NOT the same as using an actual image off the web of said person to make convincingly real AI smut to jerk off to without their consent or permission. You didn't take the photo. You don't own the image and you are not the person whose image is being used. In any event, to compare a text based fiction piece or satirical bit from South Park to deepfaking real people into your sexual fantasy without their consent or knowledge is a false equivalence at best and I stand by that.
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
johnnypie said: As a producer, I'm seeing new new contracts that producers want models to sign and tucked away in the fine print is authorizing to use their likeness in perpetuity. What this means is some producers want to right to create AI based on the real models they hire, and there are warnings about this going out in the model community.
The modeling community is becoming aware and we had a huge talk about it a week ago. Be prepared to sign paperwork yourselves if you want to work with these women because they want nothing of it. Kendra James and a few others are already justifiably pissed because people have been using their images to make their AI slop and selling it without their knowledge or consent.
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
Now, I'm happy to have a conversation about whether making AI vids of celebrities getting messy is morally dubious or not, but I guess if we go down that route we'll also have to look at banning text and stories that feature celebrities in imaginary situations as well.
I assume you're talking about fan fiction, which is mainly illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_with_fan_fiction
bizopp713 said: There needs to be repercussions for actions or else what stops someone from doing it in the future. This is clearly the mostwam situation all over again where Messmaster is going to force the community to make him act instead of doing the right thing from the beginning.
Can I please ask everyone to turn down the temperature? We are a community. We figure these things out and always have. AI is new to all of us, and the rules are constantly being reconsidered and changed. And things you want changed right now just might be in the process of being changed... just ask!
Everybody is being heard, and nobody is being ignored! I am working *constantly* on coding this site and refining all the rules to take us to the next phase, and nothing is set in stone. Every change requires deep thought so we can maintain synchronicity all the way from the code to the TOS, but opportunists seem to want to put a bad spin on the time it takes to do that
We always need healthy debate, but cynicism and bullying ain't it. We do disagree sometimes but the people here are honest, so why can't we start from there. Thanks to the many people who actually help this site every single day, constantly flagging stuff, giving me advice, and lifting us up. THEY are the reason this site is still here, not the people who pile on right when times get difficult.
Stay messy, my friends
johnnypie said:
I assume you're talking about fan fiction, which is mainly illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_with_fan_fiction
Now, I'm happy to have a conversation about whether making AI vids of celebrities getting messy is morally dubious or not, but I guess if we go down that route we'll also have to look at banning text and stories that feature celebrities in imaginary situations as well.
I assume you're talking about fan fiction, which is mainly illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_with_fan_fiction
Thanks for looking this up. I figured it could have fell under trademark but wasn't 100% positive. Entertainment law is a bit muddy in some areas (pun intended)
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
Messmaster said: Can I please ask everyone to turn down the temperature? We are a community. We figure these things out and always have. AI is new to all of us, and the rules are constantly being reconsidered and changed. And things you want changed right now just might be in the process of being changed... just ask!
Everybody is being heard, and nobody is being ignored! I am working *constantly* on coding this site and refining all the rules to take us to the next phase, and nothing is set in stone. Every change requires deep thought so we can maintain synchronicity all the way from the code to the TOS, but opportunists seem to want to put a bad spin on the time it takes to do that
We always need healthy debate, but cynicism and bullying ain't it. We do disagree sometimes but the people here are honest, so why can't we start from there. Thanks to the many people who actually help this site every single day, constantly flagging stuff, giving me advice, and lifting us up. THEY are the reason this site is still here, not the people who pile on right when times get difficult.
Everybody is being heard, and nobody is being ignored! I am working *constantly* on coding this site and refining all the rules to take us to the next phase, and nothing is set in stone. Every change requires deep thought so we can maintain synchronicity all the way from the code to the TOS, but opportunists seem to want to put a bad spin on the time it takes to do that
We always need healthy debate, but cynicism and bullying ain't it. We do disagree sometimes but the people here are honest, so why can't we start from there. Thanks to the many people who actually help this site every single day, constantly flagging stuff, giving me advice, and lifting us up. THEY are the reason this site is still here, not the people who pile on right when times get difficult.
Where does the site stand? Are the rules for all or for some? Is creating AI from someone without their consent wrong or right?
I have seen talks in this thread about the content being OK as long as it is hosted somewhere else. That is not the case. Many times YouTube links are removed because they contain children in the video. No children in videos is a hard stance that MM has taken. I think that non-consensual AI should be treated the same way. People should be required to prove consent if their content is questioned. The post should be deleted and only restored after consent has been proven through documentation.
Messmaster said:
Can I please ask everyone to turn down the temperature? We are a community. We figure these things out and always have. AI is new to all of us, and the rules are constantly being reconsidered and changed. And things you want changed right now just might be in the process of being changed... just ask!
Everybody is being heard, and nobody is being ignored! I am working *constantly* on coding this site and refining all the rules to take us to the next phase, and nothing is set in stone. Every change requires deep thought so we can maintain synchronicity all the way from the code to the TOS, but opportunists seem to want to put a bad spin on the time it takes to do that
We always need healthy debate, but cynicism and bullying ain't it. We do disagree sometimes but the people here are honest, so why can't we start from there. Thanks to the many people who actually help this site every single day, constantly flagging stuff, giving me advice, and lifting us up. THEY are the reason this site is still here, not the people who pile on right when times get difficult.
bizopp713 said: There needs to be repercussions for actions or else what stops someone from doing it in the future. This is clearly the mostwam situation all over again where Messmaster is going to force the community to make him act instead of doing the right thing from the beginning.
Can I please ask everyone to turn down the temperature? We are a community. We figure these things out and always have. AI is new to all of us, and the rules are constantly being reconsidered and changed. And things you want changed right now just might be in the process of being changed... just ask!
Everybody is being heard, and nobody is being ignored! I am working *constantly* on coding this site and refining all the rules to take us to the next phase, and nothing is set in stone. Every change requires deep thought so we can maintain synchronicity all the way from the code to the TOS, but opportunists seem to want to put a bad spin on the time it takes to do that
We always need healthy debate, but cynicism and bullying ain't it. We do disagree sometimes but the people here are honest, so why can't we start from there. Thanks to the many people who actually help this site every single day, constantly flagging stuff, giving me advice, and lifting us up. THEY are the reason this site is still here, not the people who pile on right when times get difficult.
Turn down the temperature? This has been an actual good conversation. The only thing we have all agreed on is that we all agree what was done was wrong and that it is hypocritical to say something is against on site rules and fail to block advertising on site for off site where it is sold. These two should be banned from advertising and even not be allowed to have their link visible on site until those videos are removed and the culprits show they made it right.
Sponsors
Sponsors
Design & Code ©1998-2025 Loverbuns, LLC 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
Epoch Billing Support Log In