I don’t understand it (why it has to happen) that expansion of the original deepfake rule sucks this would apply to fortniite and call of duty models oh and resident evil models.
Modified what I said to be a little less verbose:
you guys approve?
- Depictions of real people engaged in sex acts without their consent: Illegal
*Depictions of fictional characters who resemble real people is fine.
- Yay
- Nay
0
voters
Not quite. It depends on whether the character is a depiction of a real person, or just a character.
Like I mentioned earlier, depictions of characters is fine even if they resemble real people.
Eg. A video titled “black widow” and featuring the black widow character is fine, even if it resembles scarlette johansson.
This is just the rule you originally posted with the addition of “sex acts” and omission of “deepfake.” Could be misunderstood as rape and the second line implying that fictional rape is okay?
I think a little verbosity is okay if it helps with clarity
How about:
Fictional content intending to represent a real person engaged in sex acts without their consent (Deepfakes, Etc.): Illegal
*Depictions of fictional characters who resemble real people is fine.
2 Likes
I think that works.
Depictions of real people be it 2d/3d or edited videos with their likeness engaged in sex acts without their consent : Illegal
That’s how I would write it. I don’t agree with the rule expansion like @ihavealittlejohn said content involving tiktoks and clips aren’t sexual or intended to be but are posted here in a sexual manner or edited to be near sexual content. I’m not saying those should also be banned but I don’t see how 2d/3d content of a person, that’s obviously not real is some how worse and banned in comparison to actual clips of real people being put near sexual content. I’m sure someone would be offended all the same to see obviously fictional sexual content of themselves and real clips of themselves in a sexual context.
I agreed with you a little while back.
The differentiating thing is the person’s likeness is being directly manipulated in a deepfake or CG animation.
The realism is less important as much as the intent to use someone’s likeness and manipulate it.
@Shownshadow does make a good point, there is still a lot of content that now is subject to removal under this rule change because of how ubiquitous some celebrity models are.
https://discuss.eroscripts.com/t/proreducer-famous-fortnite-freaks-hmv-suggested/306111/1
https://discuss.eroscripts.com/t/4k-3-ixaacblackn-fortnite-icon-sluts-hmv/311289
Plus potentially anything else tagged “fortnite” since they might include a celebrity cameo.
1 Like
Not just that but anything with historical real people doesn’t matter if it’s not real making an animation based off them is banned here. Other platforms don’t remove this content either it’s viewed as creative freedom this is really strict eroscripts wouldn’t be more liable compared to them.
and those topics just got deleted
I don’t think this is that strict. Even in the above example the original link 404s. It was removed.
This won’t affect the vast majority of content on the platform. It’s a small change that extends an already existing rule to include content that was previously seen as an exception.
1 Like
I don’t think it’s strict but it is maybe a little arbitrary.
This site is not bigger than rule34 and other platforms that allow this content so this is strict at least to me. Even if the vast majority of content on the forum isn’t this content these are still good scripts that we won’t be able to interact with and there will be more getting deleted it’s not like we ae talking about 5-10 scripts. I don’t think I can say anything more on this it’s a restriction that you aren’t being forced to make. I hate to see less scripts of animated content.
2 Likes
Quick clarification: the updated rule states that “depictions of real people who have not consented to having their image used in a sexual context” now falls under the deepfake category. Does this apply to babecock PMVs? They use real, unaltered images of people’s faces in a sexual context, which seems like a more direct violation of that wording than a stylized fortnite CG model would be.
1 Like
No. There was confusion about the wording so it’s been updated to be clearer:
I’d hire you as my attorney if I could.
1 Like
So, if the Billie Eilish CGI model were called Millie Eyelash, it would suddenly be acceptable? I don’t think so. The Resident Evil actors gave consent for their facial and body motion‑capture data to be used in a video game not in pornographic material. The models being used are almost indistinguishable from the real actors, in my opinion, and would qualify as deepfake pornography.
Either all of its okay, or none of its okay.
3 Likes
Only a sith deals in absolutes.
Joking aside, I think this line is misplaced. Like most things in life there are nuances and tossing aside nuance will leave us with no freedom.
No because the intent is for the character to resemble the real person.
Which is why the stipulation is the intent.
In my opinion then, the wording is still pretty vague. “Fictional content intending to represent a real person” leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and this thread alone has generated like 30 replies trying to pin down what it actually means. If intent is the deciding factor, couldn’t anyone just disclaim that their content isn’t intended to represent a real person and get around the rule entirely? Intent seems like a hard thing to enforce consistently.
1 Like
No, because a claim like that would be lying and it would be trivial to tell. We’re not robots or LLMs.
Black Widow is a fictional Marvel character, but in some media she’s portrayed by Scarlett Johansson. Some 3D models aren’t based on the comic character, they’re based specifically on Scarlett Johansson’s likeness dressed as Black Widow. Is that a fictional character depiction or a depiction of a real person? The intent behind creating that model could reasonably be argued both ways, which is exactly the kind of ambiguity that “intent” as a standard struggles to resolve.