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.

dalamar666 said:
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.

bizopp713 said:
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.

Nostalgic Erotica Prod said: 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.

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

Nostalgic Erotica Prod said:
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

Messmaster said:
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

Messmaster said: Thanks for the explanation. I'll go back to the backend now

RobbyWLP said: 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

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

RobbyWLP said:
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.
Robby

RobbyWLP said:
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

Nostalgic Erotica Prod said:
How does Photoshop input anything copyrighted into a video

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

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.

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: 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.

dalamar666 said:
You are in the wrong on this one. Please tell me where it says in a release that their participation in the activity will be used on the internet for people's spank banks. People signing these releases and participating in these shows probably have no clue what WAM is. I would also be willing to bet that a lot of people in charge of making these shows have no clue what WAM is.

The argument I think of when it comes to people and the rights they give up is best summed up with this example. There is a store that sells clothing to states in my area. That store found a stock image of a locally famous actor in an item of clothing similar to what they sell. These images can be used by anyone for almost anything, Ed Wood made a career doing it. That company then used this image in their marketing campaigns, billboards etc making it appear that this actor had worked with them on the ad campaign when that is not the case. The actor was mad that their image was being used by the company without compensation. When they dug into things and found out where the image came from, they realized they had no case. Was it unethical what the company did, 100%. The company knew exactly what people would assume from this campaign and that the actors popularity would generate sales.


I think that we need to develop some guidelines from the discussions in this thread. I think that we need more clear rules around the use of AI that cannot be misinterpreted or manipulated from their meaning. I also think that those rules need to be enforced the same way rules around children in WAM are enforced. I think that there needs to be a different category of flag for copyright infringement or non-consensual use. I think these should take priority over other flags and reporting that exists.

bizopp713 said:I am not saying people on messy tv shows signed off on being in spank banks but they did sign a release for the TV show to be aired the way it was shot. The girls on Love island signed off on appearing on TV pied. When that is added to this forum it isn't manipulated from it's original filmed status. If someone used AI to make the girls nude then that would be an infringement. Also, these clips should be listed from sites where they have the right to show the clip like Love Island's social media accounts.

dalamar666 said:
You are still focusing on infringement when this is about consent. When those clips were posted to this site, no one having anything to do with the production or distribution of that clip gave consent for it to be posted on a porn site for spank bank.

bizopp713 said:The women in this clip signed a release that allows the studio to put this clip on a public forum. They knew viewers were going to be able to see them getting wet.

dalamar666 said:
Nobody signed a release for the footage to be used for sexual purposes.

dalamar666 said: I think that we need to develop some guidelines from the discussions in this thread. I think that we need more clear rules around the use of AI that cannot be misinterpreted or manipulated from their meaning. I also think that those rules need to be enforced the same way rules around children in WAM are enforced. I think that there needs to be a different category of flag for copyright infringement or non-consensual use. I think these should take priority over other flags and reporting that exists.

dalamar666 said:
Nobody signed a release for the footage to be used for sexual purposes.