Some videos are being removed for compliance purposes

doublevr

XHamster has been ordered to delete all amateur videos where they do not have documented consent, or face fines of up to 1700 EUR, per video.

They also have to pay legal fees to EOKM. They have three weeks to comply. https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:2192

petermc

doublevr no one would have any issue with that. Stopping stuff like revenge porn, upskirting etc. All porn should have the performers signing off on the scene, that’s absolutely correct.

That’s real life consent which is totally different to what we’re talking about which is fictional consent in the scene storyline itself. Not that I’m advocating for CNC scenes, absolutely not, but having someone, who is clearly about to have sex with you anyway, sip a glass of (probably fake alcohol free) champagne or even just having a glass on the table is not CNC. That’s taking it to an almost absurd extreme.

doorsareopen

petermc summed it up pretty well above, and having to remove all amateur content is signalling a pretty big swing if they're really starting to crack down on that widespread. but as far as removing content with alcohol or whatever, which is ludicrous in the first place, are there not written contracts between performers and studios in place for the scenes they shoot that would indicate consent regardless of the scenario in the scene? and i would assume these studios are legally obligated to keep these records, so if there was any issue as to legality or if someone was unable to consent wouldn't that issue be between the bank and the studio itself? why would 3rd party sites like slr have anything to do with removal of scenes if the studio itself was not forced to remove the same scene from their own website? and i assume all these sites use the same credit card companies slr and other 3rd party sites use to charge members for monthly membership. just hard to figure out why slr has to remove it, but not the studio itself? all of this seems vague as to why some and not others

Bucket619

petermc @doublevr for shits and giggleshave a glass of wine 🍷 with a bottle of Oceanspray CranRaspberry next to it 🤣🤣🤣🥲 and make it like a meme in any scenes with a bar that stocks nothing but cranberry and all its variants of combo flavors 🤣🤣🤣

doublevr

Also some few adult friendly electronic banks do stop operating recently.
Doing compliance right is the key 👍️

Docbear64

doublevr It''s pretty wild but I've never considered how who a porn company does banking with could affect the types of porn available to me but it makes sense after hearing baout how challenging banks relaitonship with adult content is in general.

spanker

i know only fans has had me delete a cartoon sexy pic in the avatar or profile....they are extremely vigilant

spacepirate

doorsareopen are there not written contracts between performers and studios in place for the scenes they shoot that would indicate consent regardless of the scenario in the scene?

for all professionally shot scenes.. yes. for a lot of amateur stuff.. no.

doorsareopen just hard to figure out why slr has to remove it, but not the studio itself?

they dont have to.. they are opting to because its the safer road.

doublevr

The San Francisco City Attorney has filed a lawsuit against 16 operators of "AI Undressing/Nudify/Deepfake" sites. https://www.sfcityattorney.org/2024/08/15/city-attorney-sues-most-visited-websites-that-create-nonconsensual-deepfake-pornography/

rerun119

doublevr This is why I said you should stay away from Deepfakes altogether at least in the beginning until it goes to the courts.
Because it is for sure without a doubt going to go to court. Voices, AI faces, it doesn't matter what it is. People are going to be scared of this tech and try to stop it.

TemporaryName

Seems like a waste of time to try to stop it. Newer and better quality stuff comes out constantly.. and if it's not some big company, then it's any regular joe with some money and/or knowhow that just does it for free because they want something better themselves, or open source. Wack-a-mole. It would seem the original images would have to be copyrighted.. or at least not made available publicly to have a case against someone altering them. Who's stopping somebody from printing out an image and cutting off the head and pasting it onto a Playboy magazine? How are you going to stop that? Or the digital equivalent.. cut out the head in a digital picture and paste it on a different body. The high tech AI I'm sure would look more consistent, but it's not like there aren't low tech options that anybody with MS Paint couldn't figure out how to do in seconds.

rerun119

TemporaryName I'm not saying that the people suing are going to win. That doesn't mean they can't take you to court. If SLR is the biggest VR Porn site and somebody gets a stick up their ass and wants to try to stop it. Then SLR would have to pay a shit load of money and years of time for the courts to say they win.
I just wouldn't do it and let them sue someone else first. I'm no lawyer but I have lived in the United States for 40+ years and this is going to happen to some company. But, SLR can do what they want.

TemporaryName

Surprising coming from San Francisco btw, who are fine with g@y everything, celebrating butt stuff with parades.. making knowingly spreading HIV a misdemeanor instead of a felony, some promoting or working toward under age stuff, or grooming children to be LGBT, etc... strange that place are the ones wanting to go against AI digital fake porn images.

« Previous Page