This rule was reverted, posts deleted are being restored and the rules are updated.
2 Likes
I’m wondering if the implications of this ruling haven’t been fully thought through… If “depictions of real people who have not consented to having their image used in a sexual context” that suddenly seems to ban a huge area of content on the site.
For example:
KBJ and Dancing
https://discuss.eroscripts.com/t/maxim-switch-dance-multi-axis/320560
The dancer did not consent to the sexual contextualizing of their dance.
Cum Tributes
https://discuss.eroscripts.com/t/4k-4-ryuuun-aespa-nmixx-cum-tribute-pmv-weekly-reward/310393
The tributee did not consent to the sexual contextualizing of their image.
Pretty much anything that says “TikTok”
https://discuss.eroscripts.com/t/tiktok-gym-thots-2-crazy1337-pmv/67359
Random gym girl #27 did not consent to the sexual contextualizing of their clip.
Should all those threads be deleted???
Also, what is to be done if a compilation video contains within it a single clip that is deemed “deepfake” but the rest is fine? Is the entire video/thread bannable? I ask because the thread of mine that was taken down was of a ~20 second clip which I have definitely seen in compilation on Eroscripts already.
A deepfake, to me, is when a real sex act is altered using AI or other techniques to make it seem as though a person not involved in that act is participating. It is content that is near indiscernable from fictional content, so that a viewer might be mistaken into thinking Ema Watson or whoever is actually performing a sex act. Usually this is done through face-mapping.This new rule makes it so that fully rigged 3d models or 2D animations aren’t allowed – things that 100% are not deepfakes. Maybe an argument could be made that AI models generating Ryan Renalds slogging Ryan Gosling could also be considered deepfakes, but that’s a grey area.
I’m not saying it’s wrong to ban sexual content of celebrities if that’s what you want to do, but at the very least the rule needs to be less ambiguous. Since this change was in response to my post the other day, which is the first post I’ve ever made on this site, I’ll admit I’m slightly annoyed that I didn’t even get a chance to reply before my post was taken down. Is there an avenue to dispute take-downs of threads?
2 Likes
None of those are depictions of people. They just are real people.
Depiction is an important word there.
Isn’t that a bit silly?
I can post a video of me jizzing on a picture of a celebrities face, but if an artist draws someone jizzing on a celebrity that is not allowed.
EDIT: and in any case it is not clear what is meant by “depiction” in the rule.
2 Likes
Yes, but that sure seems like a semantics issue rather than the point they brought up: these people did not consent to their images being used in a sexualized context.
Just because a person puts up a TT dance video, doesn’t mean they’re consenting to being used in a pornographic manner. Not all of the dance videos contain porn, but there are some which do. Not all the performers are connected to OnlyFans/etc and are adult entertainers, but a few are.
edit: it’s not a censorship issue, it’s a consent issue.
1 Like
I think a poll on this should be done I personally see no problems with it if it’s tagged as a deepfake and has it in the title so it can’t be misconstrued as being “real”. It could be added to a default blacklist tag group and would be hidden for most users.
Yes words do mean things.
When this adjustment was discussed we considered “The Line”.
It’s been complained about a few times that depictions of people toe the line of “being a deepfake” and I initially didn’t really consider it much some people informed me of some of the concerns. The topic of consent did stick with me.
The primary concern is when a depiction of a real person is used to make that person have sex.
Stretching that out to be any representation crosses the boundary of reasonable enforcement.
To make it clear, when the word depiction is used, we are indicating that a person made a fictional representation of that person and is manipulating that representation to make it do things the real person did not consent to.
1 Like
I think that is reasonable. I would urge you to update the rules text to include that clarifying information, and maybe use a better term than depiction. I’d prefer the term “likeness” since you aren’t counting real images in your definition.
Something like: Deepfakes and videos that involve the likeness of real people committing fictional sex acts are not allowed.
I am happy to adjust the verbiage but likeness is even less specific than depiction.
Depiction means a person created it.
Yeah, deep fakes should’ve been taboo on the site given its actually a legal issue given actual deep fakes of real people are illegal to publish/distribute(at least in the US).
Spirit of the rule was obviously about actual deep fakes and not about using a sfw photo/vid and jerking off to it, but I guess we need it in actual writing.
1 Like
Again I think a poll should be done
Deepfakes were always not allowed. No poll is necessary. This change only extends the rule to something users have complained about that they feel should be included. After some discussion, I agreed.
I did add a poll to get info on how many people understand/don’t understand the verbiage.
2 Likes
I think you might be mistaken about what depiction does or does not imply. Likeness is sometimes used in a legal context around ownership of one’s appearance. The rule here implies that someone else owns their own face and an artist can’t put it on a model and have sex with it. That has much more to do with the person’s likeness than the artists depiction.
I’ll drop it here since I don’t really have a dog in this fight anyways.
Idk what the original topic you made that got deleted was but if you want scripts of this content you’ll have to use ai to make those scripts, commission a scripter off site to make a script or learn how to script and make them. This is the issue with niche communities you generally have one place to get stuff forums based around this content likely don’t make funscripts. If you make any scripts or commission them to be made you can share them on a deepfake forum or community where it’s not banned that would be the best scenario to create a funscript community/culture within another. I don’t think it should be banned but I don’t make the rules goodluck regardless.
Ai was not the defining factor. It was a CG creation of Billie Eilish.
What do you guys think of this wording:
Content intending to represent a real person engaged in sex acts using their likeness is banned (deep fakes, cg animation)
*Depictions of fictional characters who resemble real people is fine.
1 Like
I don’t actually like deepfake content, which is why I’m not too miffed about this rule change. It was a 3D render of Billie Eyelash (a Billie Eillish “deepfake”) made by LucasGorge. I picked a terrible first script to upload since it was immediately taken down haha.
1 Like
This is better. “intending to represent a real person” is the core issue.
1 Like
It’s 3d cg render of a real person the content itself would more obviously not be real then… So basically any famous person or individual that has animated 3d or 2d content made of them can not be shared here.
Correct, that is the new rule.