Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Honestly surprised to see that no one on here has started a topic on the recent reddit phenomena known as "deepfakes."

 

For those who haven't heard of it yet, a program known as "fakeapp" was released by the user "deepfakes" on reddit a couple of weeks ago. The program allows you to take one persons face and swap it with another's in an image or full length videos, and the results are...very, very real - depending on how long the creator allows the program to "train" itself, and how much source material is available, you aren't able to tell what is real from what is fake. 

 

Obviously this has started gaining traction with the media, and has caused some serious controversy. It is being compared to "The Fappening," and "The Fappening 2.0," but in this case as long as a celebrity has a large quantity of source material (i.e. selfies, which they all do...), they can have a full length pornographic videos released of them that look 100% real. 

 

Now all that media stuff aside - and this is where I sit with this issue presently - I think it is completely wrong, and immoral to produce illicit content of ANYONE without their consent, especially when the creator has the intention to mass distribute their creations. That being out of the way, I couldn't help but be curious what the effect of this program will have on our community. Obviously, we like to fantasize here, and a lot of that ends up being expressed through comics, drawings, morphs, and...well...photoshopping faces of women we would like to see bigger onto a bigger body. Pornography and explicit nudity (posting of genitals) is not permitted on this site, so I am curious how the moderators are going to start handling when users inevitably being posting content created by FakeApp... Will this new content be treated like morphs, or other edits that currently populate the site? Will it be banned? The reason I am asking this question is because it is obvious where users here will get their source material for the body swap - amateur models and paysite models. They have high resolution photos and lots of them, and it is their copyrighted content. I'm sure they won't be happy about their bodies being stolen, neither will they be flattered by the fact that their face is being swapped out for a more preferred substitute.

 

I, personally, am pretty torn here on this one. Obviously the idea of being able to see any woman we want at any size we want is painfully tempting, and I think in a sense it could be revolutionary for the FA, BBW, SSBBW, Feeder/Feedee community - but then how is this going to be regulated, if at all, and is it going to strongly discourage, and upset existing models whose bodies will become a sort of costume that any woman can jump into? I feel like this sort of thing is acceptable for personal use, or fulfilling personal fantasies,  but I am worried about how it will affect the community as a whole. 

 

What are your thoughts on this issue? Curious to hear what any moderators/models have to say.

 

EDIT: 

A quick follow-up on the main issue I brought forward - With this software, there is a ongoing discussion over the legality of the content produced - because once a new person's face has been placed over the original it has now been altered, and "technically" becomes "original content," and the producer of the original content does not own the copyright to the "new" material, and cannot file claims. I don't think that I got that across in my original post. Basically - A paysite model creates subscription-based, or pay-to-view content - someone who has either legally, or illegally obtained the content then uses FakeApp to alter that content and then proceeds to post the altered content online on sites such as this - the model has no say over this new content, entire full length videos, and paid content are now available on the web, and they have no power to remove the altered content, or file copyright claims. This is the BIG issue here...

 

Please note, this is as of now! We will have to wait and see what will come of all of this. There might be a way for owners of original content to claim copyright of altered works in the future. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, teracottaknight said:

A quick follow-up on the main issue I brought forward - With this software, there is a ongoing discussion over the legality of the content produced - because once a new person's face has been placed over the original it has now been altered, and "technically" becomes "original content," and the producer of the original content does not own the copyright to the "new" material, and cannot file claims. I don't think that I got that across in my original post. Basically - A paysite model creates subscription-based, or pay-to-view content - someone who has either legally, or illegally obtained the content then uses FakeApp to alter that content and then proceeds to post the altered content online on sites such as this - the model has no say over this new content, entire full length videos, and paid content are now available on the web, and they have no power to remove the altered content, or file copyright claims. This is the BIG issue here...

 

Please note, this is as of now! We will have to wait and see what will come of all of this. There might be a way for owners of original content to claim copyright of altered works in the future. 

Not sure what your sources for that legal analysis might be, but this sounds like pretty a pretty standard sort of "derivative copyright" issue to me. Unless a "fair use" defense applies (unlikely), I think the copyright holders of the original works used to make the new combined material would have pretty good footing to get that material removed via DMCA takedown notice, or to exercise other legal remedies for protection of copyrights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest An Optimist
13 hours ago, teracottaknight said:

and they have no power to remove the altered content, or file copyright claims. This is the BIG issue here...

Why is this an issue. 

Porn isn't good. It's to human relationship what eating nutella is to nutrition. 

So porn becoming impossible to make money from is a good thing. There'll be less of it. There won't be any hard-pressed sad cases going into it for fame. Just exhibitionists who get off on being jacked off to. 

So this is a good thing no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest An Optimist
3 hours ago, riptoryx said:

No.

Porn isn't really good for people whose job it's to make it. 

This girl who seems a bit more eloquent than the average porn start had a bit of a career and explains it 

 

It's a shitty, exploitative business. 

There's more than enough amateurs who'd step into the gap and provide some content because they like to. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, riptoryx said:

Not sure what your sources for that legal analysis might be, but this sounds like pretty a pretty standard sort of "derivative copyright" issue to me. Unless a "fair use" defense applies (unlikely), I think the copyright holders of the original works used to make the new combined material would have pretty good footing to get that material removed via DMCA takedown notice, or to exercise other legal remedies for protection of copyrights.

I don't have any hard sources for the legality of things - just what has been floating around the web (which yes I realize its the internet, and most things should be taken with a grain of salt), and on the news. There haven't been any cases that have gone through the legal system, to my knowledge, so there hasn't been a legal precedent set yet. It just seems like no one really knows what to make of it at this time. I've seen several lawyers in the US talking about how it could be argued as freedom of expression, creativity, art, etc. - and therefore fall under the first amendment...but that seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

After thinking about it some more and reading your comment I am leaning towards your point of view regarding copyright claims. I suppose if you can sue over using someone's image or likeness without their permission, this would probably fall into the same category, legally speaking. In the case of celebrities, they could also sue for defamation - assuming they could actually track down original posters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I feel that if you're altering content that the model is not making money on, it's likely that you'll see no legal repercussions.

For instance, a trailer from an old video featuring a retired model (SexyMic, for instance) altered as if it was Aubrey Plaza jiggling her way through the German countryside might not ruffle too many feathers around these parts. I doubt Mic would make an international incident about that. Aubrey Plaza herself would probably have more of an issue with that, but since she's a comedian, she'll likely find it nothing more than humorous. 

Speaking of the nature of the content, there's a lot of material here that's erotic, but may technically not be pornographic. A plump woman jiggling as she struggles to do jumping jacks, a rotund gal stuffing her face and patting her bloated tummy or even a juicy chick squeezing into a pair of jeans and weighing herself each don't exactly scream XXX material. By definition, there is no sexual activity or explicit nudity taking place in any such scenario. If Laura Dern, Juliette Lewis and Iliza Shlesinger were all offended that their faces were featured in such videos that were floating around on some random tube site, legally speaking, they may have no case. Sure they can be offended, feel puzzled, become angry (or interested?), but they probably cant sue. Now if YOU'RE PROFITING OF THIS then there could be issues...

Now from another perspective, anyone who's spent any amount of time in this online community will quickly realize that alot of amateur models keep their faces hidden. I think these amateur models could feel emboldened to make more impressionable videos by showing their (favorite celebrity's) face. It makes things easier to film such a video anonymously with the intense filter of a famous face. Make your video, swap your face with Michelle Williams (the White one or the Black one, depending on your skin tone) and voila! You're sharing your feedee fantasy while staying in the closet.

As a consumer of feedee/(female) WG content and as a Hollywood fan, I want to see this. I want to see Eliza Coupe's face on Whitney Thore's body. Or Charlotte Flair's face on Mama June's pre-WLS body. Or Carmen Electra on Carla Jimenez's body.

Of course those possibilities are vast, but this stuff can do other things. Watch new episodes of SVU with Season 1 Olivia Benson's face. Imagine being a young actor with a paltry reel of student films: you can now pad your resume, swap some of the faces of your actual co-stars with established stars. It's not about what you know, but who you know and you can now know Denzel Washington, Anne Hathaway and Beyonce as castmates with the aid of this app. You can make a supercut of a fan trailer casting the stars you want. You think Josh Hartnett should've been Thor, turn to FakeApp. You wanted 1999 Rose McGowan as Wonder Woman, well #MeToo. This app can do that.

Or you can do a whole bunch of Nicholas Cage stuff... Whatever

Q1gtVyw.gif

Crazy thing about that is, Tim Burton wanted Nic Cage to play Superman...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.