Based on our previous conversation, you know I've been running a fetish community since 1997. I installed a rule not allowing any AI. Two main reasons. One, we want to support the community's producers and especially the models. Two, it's a moderation nightmare. But based on seeing your actions but also mainly inaction on your part over the years regarding bad actors here, I'm sure you'll do what's best for your wallet.

To be fair, AI came up like a missile. I don't think anyone was expecting it to be this much of a problem this early on. Far too fast for anyone to respond if they got their nose buried in code and not on the horizon.

That being said, something needs to be done about it and it's not just here either. It's becoming an industry wide concern.

I'm emerging from my usual lurk mode to address my growing concern about how AI-generated content is being handled on the forums.

To clarify, I'm not inherently against AI content or its use. However, my concern centres on the permissibility of 'nonconsensual' content, particularly in the context of AI-generated deepfakes.

I certainly don't want to "pile on" or come across as a cynical opportunist or bully and I'm not posting to attack anyone or take sides in ongoing disagreements. However, this is an important issue that deserves serious consideration.

According to UMD's terms of service:

"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 allow linking to, embedding, and posting about such content on other websites, but we may disallow that in the future."

Under current policy, nonconsensual AI deepfakes featuring real people are permitted as long as they're not hosted directly on the site. This seems more concerned with legal liability than addressing the ethical or moral implications of such content.

As the terms state, the site "may disallow that in the future." I believe that future should be now. The fact that these images are created without the subject's consent should be enough reason to prohibit them entirely from being shared here. Many other adult and fetish sites have already implemented similar policies.

Consider this hypothtical: A college student uses an image of a lecturer to create a deepfake of her in a WAM fetish scenario, without her consent, and shares it publicly. Under the current policy, this content could still be linked and discussed on the forum as long as it's not hosted here and would not be removed if reported. Does that sound reasonable?

Here are a few suggestions for moving forward:

- Ban *all* nonconsensual AI-generated content: Even if not hosted on the site, allowing links to such content contributes to its spread and normalization.

- Clarify what constitutes a consent violation: A clear, enforceable rule stating that AI-generated content involving real people (celebrities or civilians) without their consent will not be allowed, regardless of where it's hosted.

- Ensure proper moderation: Recently, there have been instances where moderators removed posts or threads (particularly those containing links to nonconsensual AI deepfakes), only for the admin to later overturn the decision. The Admin and moderators should be aligned on what's permitted to avoid confusion and dissatisfaction over thread removals or report handling.

I hope this can be addressed in a way that protects the rights of individuals and fosters a responsible use of AI in the community.

Coming faster than you think. A number 1 country song was AI: https://youtu.be/rGremoYVMPc?si=6vaN3t5Qczjj5H1D so imagine allowing that if you ran a large country music forum.

The job is simple; protect models and producers using models.

To play devils advocate, MM did leave the avenue open to ban external links off site featuring AI created content of real people. I would like to think he did so with the intention that if things did not exactly pan out the way he had hoped, he could easily pivot his foot the other way.

Now I think it's time that we accept the fact that AI creations need to be limited to original characters and if not, all external links will be prohibited and no stores allowed for any associated accounts in violation. I mean, it is what it is. If we don't draw the line now, who's to say where is stops?

I just don't understand the cynicism. Why does everything have to be an agenda? I am telling you exactly what's going on and will explain anything you ask about. If you don't understand the process then please ask. The terms have been changing like every day for months as I learn more and adjust code and sync the terms and guide us through this. I am asking for your help, not your division.

Bruh, I was literally telling him that you were possibly planning for such a scenario to arise which explains why you left official policy open ended the way you did.

Stop it. I was defending you

Thank you for your explanation and sorry if I was defensive. Lots going behind the scenes nowadays. You are absolutely right that I try to mention in policy what is subject to change because there is so much we don't know yet. For whatever reason, others have tried to paint that as dishonesty, but that's apparently not what you meant. Thanks for the explanation. I'll go back to the backend now

Nothing to apologize for. I am objective so if that comes across as cynical, that's not the intention. AI honestly has everyone kinda worried and it happened way faster than anticipated. Even if you tried to stay on top of it, this was still gonna happen. If not here, then somewhere else.

Issue is, it has happened here so I guess the big question is now what the hell are we gonna do about it?

Dealing with AI in the wam world is as difficult as it is in the real world. I think it will be the death of us,,,

Thank you MM for putting in so much time to steer this community through it as best as you can.

Is the site and the day to day operations getting to a point where you need to divide your duties? Where you work on the back end things and have someone appointed as a head moderator of sorts. Someone that can address these kind of issues when they come up. Someone that will take the TLDR to you for a final ruling. It seems like you enjoy the back end stuff more than the day to day moderation and policy discussions.

Is everyone done?

Ok, so Bizopp is really playing around with the truth here.

Let's start at the beginning. He has a unique "hate" for me which I have never been able to explain. He tells me how everyone on the UMD doesn't like me among other things. He also didn't like that I posted WAM stories for some reason. He also messaged me objecting to what Al was charging for his videos, like he thought he could tell Al what to charge. So he's been on a WAM vendetta since I've been back. It's weirdly obsessive.

But what happened here was pretty simple.

Al (Photoshop) put a number of copyrighted photos in his WAM Humiliation Video. That was wrong. Period. I've let him use the old WLP site, so I should have checked as well. Again, that one is on me.

I never argued about it and even took the blame for it because I should have told him at some point. As I said to BizOpp and he ignored...."Mea Culpa". Maybe I should have translated for him.

But the fact is people from the UMD (and others off UMD) were sending him pictures for his Vids and he just started using those as well as his own stuff which was created out of thin air. Pretty sure "thin air" isn't copyrighted....at least not yet.

I had one or two up as well because I just assumed incorrectly that he was just using pictures that were NOT copyrighted. I have now taken those down as well. If I missed anything I told MM to let me know. Al is pulling all the vids off of the WLP website and will re-edit them without the copyrighted photos.

But apparently that's not good enough for BizOpp. He wants to ban Al and I from the UMD forum. Actually, he's so pissy that I''m surprised he didn't suggest lethal injection.

Look Bizopp, I get it. WAM A.I. will eventually eat into your profits.That cannot be a fun thought. But the reality is that WAM A.I. is in it's infancy. Not liking it, doesn't make that fact cease to exist.

If you would like to commiserate on that fact, I know a guy who had a number of Fotomat franchises.

Robby

This is you problem. You clearly are passing the buck and acting unapologetic to the fact that you have done this with no remorse. You used women's likeness without their consent and you feel like there is nothing wrong with it.

I don't give a shit about AI created solely from prompts if people want to share it at no to little cost. AI is never going to take the place of real wam. Have you seen the shitty AI looks.

You chose to steal someone's likeness because you clearly are lazy and can't produce prompt AI.

Btw still waiting for you to apologize to the community you broke it's guidelines and thought so little of glamour models that you stole and used their likeness.

What the hell do you think "Mea Culpa" means? I guess I did have to translate it for you.

Again, you have had a pie up your butt about me for quite a long time. No idea as to why.

Plus, you want me to apologize for something Al did. I never tried to sell anything with copyrighted images but your obsession is so strong that because Al is a business partner outside of WAM you want me to apologize for what he did? Then you fling a few insults toward me like a monkey flings his feces in a zoo.

Sure. I apologize for what Al did. I also apologize to the community for your weird obsession with me that they have to read.

BTW....you also lied a few times in your posts. I never said Al shouldn't apologize or return any funds. I told you it's not "your business what Al does and doesn't do." I can take his vids off of the WLP website, which I will certainly do, but you REALLY have to stop obsessing about me. It ain't pretty.

Robby

Here is some more evidence. The woman wearing this dress and holding the purse in her left hand seems to come from shopping websites. Her face was replaced along with the background.

I'm sure it did. And now, it's been deleted as I said.

BTW...did you and BizOpp remember to tag before you came into the ring? Did the referee see the tag?


Also, here is a "conversation" I had with BizOpp when I first asked him what his problem was with me.

This was his response:



Dude, I have gotten 9 people message me about you but they aren't just calling you an asshole. They actually have way more to say about you.

"The guy was a total bullshitter !!!! He made up stories about non existent pie scenes frequently, told outright lies to Hurley, claimed he worked for a local TV producer and had access to state of the art gear....which was a laugh as his video camera and gear must have been from the 80s as the quality of his videos was worse than one of those VHS tape cameras from the 90s"

"The only thing I find funny is how much he is ruining his reputation here. I just had to say this in retaliation to his behavior."

"wam stories were about 95% bullshit, too."

I am ok when it comes to being called an asshole. I am being an asshole to you because you deserve it. Your attitude and big head in this community is something that deserves to be called out.



As I told him, I never had a conservation with Hurley. I never claimed to work for a TV producer...anywhere.
Yes, the original WLP vids are "fuzzy." Why? Because it WAS the 90's. There were no affordable digital vid cams.

And his comments about my 'behavior", being an "asshole", because I "deserve it". My "attitude", my "big head"....just reinforces what I was saying. He just seems obsessed. Defensiveness? Projection? Who knows.

I would think if that's the way I was as a person, that after almost 30 years here on the UMD, plus producing 40 or so videos plus, meeting a number of UMD folks, plus producers like Big Shipper, PiegirlKay, MM, Jayce, Messygirl, etc, it would be rather difficult to hide.

But, so as not to be accused of deflection...

Copyrighted pictures, vids etc. are wrong and should not be on this site. They have been taken down. And I sincerely apologize for something I didn't do. But if BizOpp would like I can punish Al by making him pay for dinner for the next few weeks.

Robby

Your response to being caught using copyrighted images of women with without their permission is "My Bad" like you made a tiny unknown mistake? You response to profiting off it is that AL should pay for your dinner. You realize this is an illegal action.

Which btw you can take down your product but you are still keeping the money paid for the files and knowing you and your nonchalant attitude.you have shown, you will probably start steeling pictures from IG and other media that isn't as traceable.

No, "my bad" was my response for not carefully looking at Al's content. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

I didn't make a penny off of Al's stuff. So no clue what you are talking about. Anything that Al made from the WLP site was forwarded to him.

I have already mentioned that if someone wanted their money back, I'm sure Al has the resources to do so.

Yes, I was perfectly serious when I suggested Al pay for my dinner. (eyeroll). Note to self: Not only comprehension problems but humor problems as well.

And now your have psychic ability! I'm going to "steel" (sic) pictures.

As I told Al, there really is no reason to use those kinds of pictures anyway. Just continue to use Open.AI or another picture creation software that lets you create from your own text prompts.

Again, your obsession with me (as I showed in the previous post) is unhealthy.


Robby

Did you miss this? You can't just blame AL.

I didn't. I said CLEARLY I should have checked his content. That's MY fault because the WLP website is mine. But I didn't create or sell those vids. WTH is wrong with you? Let it go. You made your point with your tag team partner that it's a copyright violation to sell those videos. I agreed. You keep obsessing.

Robby

Help me out here.

How does Photoshop input anything copyrighted into a video when they have gone public about their generative AI not being used in that manner? I use photoshop religiously for my photography and while I have seen generative remove and fill do some pretty wild things, generating copyright material isn't one of them. Not accusing here and just Truly curious because that's never happened to me so I need context here

That is your forum post not Al's and that is you bragging about how you made it. Your bad for not checking on Al as you created and posted copywritered content and bragged about making it?

I think that was a typo, i.e. Robby meant "Photoslop" (the other person's username on this site) rather than "Photoshop" (the software application).

Yeah, I"m sure he wishes he owned Photoshop.

Robby

I bragged about creating a decent looking A.I. creation from one of Al's pictures because most of my A.I creations, at least WAM ones I've attempted turned out awful. I got ONE right....maybe two. It's kind of like me "bragging" about my ball room dancing skills because I twirled ONCE correctly. Self-deprecating is not bragging.

What are you going to accuse me of next......using a white plastic chair and a scrunchy with a woman wearing an inside out sweat shirt and sweat socks?

Stop the obsession. Like I said, it doesn't look good on you.

Robby

Seriously? Just admit you were doing it as well and apologize. No one believes these stupid explanations.

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.

This image came from amazon for a teenage prom dress. It was an exact match. I blurred it out in case the fashion model was a minor.

This post was not about copyright. It was about consent and using images of people without their consent to sell on adult fetish website.

That's still a copyright violation. BTW...did you tag in this time?

No this is about someone who is obsessed with me that was evident well before any of this took place. Remember, I didn't sell a single vid or attempt to do so. I did post a few pics that were my "A.I. experiments" including one that was obviously so. But BizOpp has some kind of weird need to attack anything and everything I do, even when he has to lie to do so.

Robby

That is one of the most rediculous and short sided arguments I have ever heard. People have posted pictures and tv shows show clips as they were made. Anyone signing up to get gunged on a TV program, signs off knowing the released video will be of them getting gunged. They are not misled.

People get off to many different things. Models that pose for shoe catalogs are consenting to their feet being released in shoes. Some people jerk off to that stuff but they are doing it to the way the images are intended.

In this case the models have given their consent to being pictured in glamorous clothing. If you want to jerk off to the ad as it appears then she has no consent argument. But they did not consent to have someone manipulate their likeness and have a pie smashed in their face.

How about this as an example, you take a picture of your 20 year old daughter and post it on your Facebook and Rob took the picture and AI'd it so a pie was smashed in her face, then he gave it to Al who sold your daughter's image without her permission so people could jerk off to it. And then when caught he says "My Bad"