UK: Revenge and deepfake porn laws to be toughened

[DVTimes]

Revenge and deepfake porn laws to be toughened

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66021643

===============

I am suspicious that they are trying to ban porn indirectly.

How long before they make it a crime to publish content from a model who gave consent but ten years later wants to have her own site and wants exclusive content, and so reports you for posting her content.

What I mean is I suspect at some point in the UK and the USA they will make it illegal for you to host content if the model wants it removed. Something on the lines of the model should have the right to change his or her mind at a later date. I can see such laws coming soon.

[Wautier]

And if so, what's the issue with that?

Do you genuinely believe that paying a one-time lump sum for someone's explicit pictures and videos grants you a lifetime irrevocable license from a moral standpoint?

Should someone challenge this in the court of law, you would lose.

You can't compare pornography to a motion picture or something similar. Porn is porn, and if you believe that it isn't, then let someone take explicit pictures and videos of you in every imaginable pose for $500 - $1000 (or maybe a bit more) and then try not to complain after you realize that the deal is completely one-sided and that you've been had.

Pornography doesn't have to be predatory, but it generally is. That's why a lot of lawmakers want to ban porn, not because they want to infringe on someone's freedom of speech.

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by Wautier

And if so, what's the issue with that?

Do you genuinely believe that paying a one-time lump sum for someone's explicit pictures and videos grants you a lifetime irrevocable license from a moral standpoint?

Should someone challenge this in the court of law, you would lose.

You can't compare pornography to a motion picture or something similar. Porn is porn, and if you believe that it isn't, then let someone take explicit pictures and videos of you in every imaginable pose for $500 - $1000 (or maybe a bit more) and then try not to complain after you realize that the deal is completely one-sided and that you've been had.

Pornography doesn't have to be predatory, but it generally is. That's why a lot of lawmakers want to ban porn, not because they want to infringe on someone's freedom of speech.

An interesting take.

I disagree with you, and do you have a time limit? I mean lets say you shoot a model and do a lot of content. And the next day you start a site with her content, but she wants it removed.

Do you remove it and just think, oh well, it only cost me $100k.

In that case will not all models shoots then get paid, then demand it is removed.

What if I shoot a model for her site and she asks me to do lesbian shoots and I arrange it. But the model then wants it removed. So not only have I paid a model for the shoot, but then the other model sues me because she cannot have that content on her site.

But then again, what stops you going to prison for hosting the content, simply because she complains to the police and has never contacted you.

[Wautier]

Originally Posted by DVTimes

An interesting take.

I disagree with you, and do you have a time limit? I mean lets say you shoot a model and do a lot of content. And the next day you start a site with her content, but she wants it removed.

Do you remove it and just think, oh well, it only cost me $100k.

In that case will not all models shoots then get paid, then demand it is removed.

What if I shoot a model for her site and she asks me to do lesbian shoots and I arrange it. But the model then wants it removed. So not only have I paid a model for the shoot, but then the other model sues me because she cannot have that content on her site.

But then again, what stops you going to prison for hosting the content, simply because she complains to the police and has never contacted you.

If you shot thousands of pictures and 50-100 scenes, then it could be very easily claimed that you were business partners, and that the talent wasn't duped as much as a one-time performer, or someone who did a couple of scenes.

You would likely be sued for a better percentage in the former scenario, but in the latter scenario, you would be sued for damages and for content removal.

Context matters, because:
1. Have you paid her (or him) a lump sum?
2. Is the content vanilla, or is it something very extreme, or shameful?
3. Can you prove how much you made off of her (or his) content?

If it cost you approximately $2000 to shoot a scene, and most of your members tuned in to watch that particular scene, then you could argue that you paid very little, but gained quite a lot.

You can't go to prison for something like that, it would be a civil matter entirely.

This law is to do with something criminal, i.e. publishing someone's images or videos without their consent, or creating fake explicit pictures, etc. which should land you in prison regardless.

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by Wautier

If you shot thousands of pictures and 50-100 scenes, then it could be very easily claimed that you were business partners, and that the talent wasn't duped as much as a one-time performer, or someone who did a couple of scenes.

You would likely be sued for a better percentage in the former scenario, but in the latter scenario, you would be sued for damages and for content removal.

Context matters, because:
1. Have you paid her (or him) a lump sum?
2. Is the content vanilla, or is it something very extreme, or shameful?
3. Can you prove how much you made off of her (or his) content?

If it cost you approximately $2000 to shoot a scene, and most of your members tuned in to watch that particular scene, then you could argue that you paid very little, but gained quite a lot.

You can't go to prison for something like that, it would be a civil matter entirely.

This law is to do with something criminal, i.e. publishing someone's images or videos without their consent, or creating fake explicit pictures, etc. which should land you in prison regardless.

At the moment in the UK you can go to prison for telling a joke.

I get the feeling that if they want to punish you, they will find ways to prosecute and get you sent down (prison).

[DVTimes]

Originally Posted by Wautier

If you shot thousands of pictures and 50-100 scenes, then it could be very easily claimed that you were business partners, and that the talent wasn't duped as much as a one-time performer, or someone who did a couple of scenes.

You would likely be sued for a better percentage in the former scenario, but in the latter scenario, you would be sued for damages and for content removal.

Context matters, because:
1. Have you paid her (or him) a lump sum?
2. Is the content vanilla, or is it something very extreme, or shameful?
3. Can you prove how much you made off of her (or his) content?

If it cost you approximately $2000 to shoot a scene, and most of your members tuned in to watch that particular scene, then you could argue that you paid very little, but gained quite a lot.

You can't go to prison for something like that, it would be a civil matter entirely.

This law is to do with something criminal, i.e. publishing someone's images or videos without their consent, or creating fake explicit pictures, etc. which should land you in prison regardless.

Also with respect, you seem now to have gone from a model has the right to have you remove content, to a model has the right to have you remove content under certain circumstances.

Something that sounds like going to court and both sides spending thousands and thousands on putting forward a legal argument.

As for deep fake, I suspect in time AI content may be included.

[TheLegacy]

Originally Posted by Wautier

If you shot thousands of pictures and 50-100 scenes, then it could be very easily claimed that you were business partners, and that the talent wasn't duped as much as a one-time performer, or someone who did a couple of scenes.

You would likely be sued for a better percentage in the former scenario, but in the latter scenario, you would be sued for damages and for content removal.

Context matters, because:
1. Have you paid her (or him) a lump sum?
2. Is the content vanilla, or is it something very extreme, or shameful?
3. Can you prove how much you made off of her (or his) content?

If it cost you approximately $2000 to shoot a scene, and most of your members tuned in to watch that particular scene, then you could argue that you paid very little, but gained quite a lot.

You can't go to prison for something like that, it would be a civil matter entirely.

This law is to do with something criminal, i.e. publishing someone's images or videos without their consent, or creating fake explicit pictures, etc. which should land you in prison regardless.

I'm sorry been watching this thread and it baffles me as to whether you've actually shot any scenes much less been in this industry for long to know the rules>

I'll try to help out if I can....

If you shot thousands of pictures and 50-100 scenes, then it could be very easily claimed that you were business partners, and that the talent wasn't duped as much as a one-time performer, or someone who did a couple of scenes.

The contract usually details how many scenes - and also using that logic if I had a team of construction builders put up a building and worked a few years doing it - does that mean that I own part of the business that leases the building? No - you are contracted no matter how much work you do.

You would likely be sued for a better percentage in the former scenario, but in the latter scenario, you would be sued for damages and for content removal.

A contract job is just that - you were told what was expected and how much. You can't come back and demand more because you thought you worked harder.

Context matters, because:
1. Have you paid her (or him) a lump sum?
2. Is the content vanilla, or is it something very extreme, or shameful?

Shameful?? That's a matter of opinion isn't it. A model is told what scenes are coming up - if she doesn't want to do it then they'll find someone else who can. It should be clearly laid out at the beginning. But there is not really shameful or morals only legal and not legal when it comes to shooting porn.

3. Can you prove how much you made off of her (or his) content?

Maybe - I would expect that if she's invited back for more scenes. If you're in the adult industry you should know already people don't share their numbers openly with anyone.

If it cost you approximately $2000 to shoot a scene, and most of your members tuned in to watch that particular scene, then you could argue that you paid very little, but gained quite a lot.

Wow - that's not an argument that's an omission since for every eg. 100 scenes you may only get one that's memorable and watched more while the other 99 are waste - so the phrase is not we paid little - it's we got lucky and paid the producers and editor well.


You can't go to prison for something like that, it would be a civil matter entirely.

The three most common civil cases are tort claims, contract breaches and landlord/tenant issues. If the model signed a contract and the company fulfilled the contract as written how then does that constitute a breach? Everyone did what they were suppose to do.

Oh and for the record if someone loses a case in civil court, that person may be ordered to pay money to the other side or return property, but that person does not go to jail just for losing the case.

This law is to do with something criminal, i.e. publishing someone's images or videos without their consent, or creating fake explicit pictures, etc. which should land you in prison regardless.

Well since there have been cases of voyeur content happen without consent most adult producers stay clear of that scenario altogether. Even those walking around in the background. That issue was dealt with a long time ago but I'm sure there are cases where it happens. As far as creating fake pictures - that's out of the hands of the producer but rather the users who created them - even sold them without consent. Sure there are touchup's that occur on images but that's Photoshop. DeepFake porn has yet to make it's way into laws but it's close - I mean where do you stop? drawings? paintings? etc. there is a lot to cover.

[Wautier]

Originally Posted by TheLegacy

I'm sorry been watching this thread and it baffles me as to whether you've actually shot any scenes much less been in this industry for long to know the rules>

I'll try to help out if I can....

If you shot thousands of pictures and 50-100 scenes, then it could be very easily claimed that you were business partners, and that the talent wasn't duped as much as a one-time performer, or someone who did a couple of scenes.

The contract usually details how many scenes - and also using that logic if I had a team of construction builders put up a building and worked a few years doing it - does that mean that I own part of the business that leases the building? No - you are contracted no matter how much work you do.

You would likely be sued for a better percentage in the former scenario, but in the latter scenario, you would be sued for damages and for content removal.

A contract job is just that - you were told what was expected and how much. You can't come back and demand more because you thought you worked harder.

Context matters, because:
1. Have you paid her (or him) a lump sum?
2. Is the content vanilla, or is it something very extreme, or shameful?

Shameful?? That's a matter of opinion isn't it. A model is told what scenes are coming up - if she doesn't want to do it then they'll find someone else who can. It should be clearly laid out at the beginning. But there is not really shameful or morals only legal and not legal when it comes to shooting porn.

3. Can you prove how much you made off of her (or his) content?

Maybe - I would expect that if she's invited back for more scenes. If you're in the adult industry you should know already people don't share their numbers openly with anyone.

If it cost you approximately $2000 to shoot a scene, and most of your members tuned in to watch that particular scene, then you could argue that you paid very little, but gained quite a lot.

Wow - that's not an argument that's an omission since for every eg. 100 scenes you may only get one that's memorable and watched more while the other 99 are waste - so the phrase is not we paid little - it's we got lucky and paid the producers and editor well.


You can't go to prison for something like that, it would be a civil matter entirely.

The three most common civil cases are tort claims, contract breaches and landlord/tenant issues. If the model signed a contract and the company fulfilled the contract as written how then does that constitute a breach? Everyone did what they were suppose to do.

Oh and for the record if someone loses a case in civil court, that person may be ordered to pay money to the other side or return property, but that person does not go to jail just for losing the case.

This law is to do with something criminal, i.e. publishing someone's images or videos without their consent, or creating fake explicit pictures, etc. which should land you in prison regardless.

Well since there have been cases of voyeur content happen without consent most adult producers stay clear of that scenario altogether. Even those walking around in the background. That issue was dealt with a long time ago but I'm sure there are cases where it happens. As far as creating fake pictures - that's out of the hands of the producer but rather the users who created them - even sold them without consent. Sure there are touchup's that occur on images but that's Photoshop. DeepFake porn has yet to make it's way into laws but it's close - I mean where do you stop? drawings? paintings? etc. there is a lot to cover.

The difference being is that the girl (or the guy) who shot a couple of scenes altogether probably suffer from poor decision making or have an addiction. It's your job not to shoot people like that, and instead shoot someone who has a kink for it, or wants that type of fame.

Someone with whom you had shot a 100 scenes, they probably aren't being paid by scene, and it's a solo girl site, or something similar. Therefore, a partnership.

Trouble being that most of them wouldn't do it if they didn't have to, and are often lied to or coerced into doing more than was agreed upon in order to make the scene feel more authentic for the viewer, and if they could, they would take their ass to court, or even something more. But as long as they prey on the vulnerable, they will be fine.

Well, let's test the shame theory... spread your old ass cheeks for me, and let me create a couple of videos of you being fisted, with your face in it.. and let's see if you think it's a matter of debate? You are laughable sometimes... throw your "but she signed a contract" mumbo jumbo to someone else. Fact of the matter is that nothing in this world gives you irrevocable lifetime rights to someone's explicit pictures if you're the only person and/or entity stopping them from leading a normal private life.

If we're talking someone like Mia Khalifa, then it simply wouldn't be possible to remove that much content due to how high profile she is, and besides, she does OnlyFans regardless. So in her case, it's not like she's trying to have a quiet normal life... but for a lot of girls and guys, it's a company or two limiting them from leading a private life like that porn site purveyor has.

[TheLegacy]

Originally Posted by Wautier

The difference being is that the girl (or the guy) who shot a couple of scenes altogether probably suffer from poor decision making or have an addiction. It's your job not to shoot people like that, and instead shoot someone who has a kink for it, or wants that type of fame.

Someone with whom you had shot a 100 scenes, they probably aren't being paid by scene, and it's a solo girl site, or something similar. Therefore, a partnership.

Trouble being that most of them wouldn't do it if they didn't have to, and are often lied to or coerced into doing more than was agreed upon in order to make the scene feel more authentic for the viewer, and if they could, they would take their ass to court, or even something more. But as long as they prey on the vulnerable, they will be fine.

Well, let's test the shame theory... spread your old ass cheeks for me, and let me create a couple of videos of you being fisted, with your face in it.. and let's see if you think it's a matter of debate? You are laughable sometimes... throw your "but she signed a contract" mumbo jumbo to someone else. Fact of the matter is that nothing in this world gives you irrevocable lifetime rights to someone's explicit pictures if you're the only person and/or entity stopping them from leading a normal private life.

If we're talking someone like Mia Khalifa, then it simply wouldn't be possible to remove that much content due to how high profile she is, and besides, she does OnlyFans regardless. So in her case, it's not like she's trying to have a quiet normal life... but for a lot of girls and guys, it's a company or two limiting them from leading a private life like that porn site purveyor has.

I'm not sure how long you've been in the industry or what exactly you do but you've made some erroneous claims regarding models and producers - even the law.

In your statement above you assert (NOTE not my opinion but yours)

1) models generally mentally can't make a decision or have an addiction
2) the producers job is to find someone with that kink required in the scene
3) the general rule of thumb are not paid by scene
4) Most models would not be doing porn at all if they had the choice
5) Most producers lie/coerce the model to get the scene
6) The adult industry preys on girls and there is nothing set up to help the girls
7) Shame is not relative but only how you perceive it. anal scenes are shameful for example and there is absolutely no model who would want to do scenes like that instead only vanilla content at best - yet - still she's mentally not suited to make that decision
8) The images should not be used ongoing to produce gain for the company instead most if not all models are ashamed and want the material to be taken down immediately or soon afterwards
9) After claiming models aren't mental stable or addicted suddenly they want a normal life and the scenes will haunt them long afterwards


Did I get that right?

You're sounding less and less like someone from this industry and more like a very zealous Christian poster who's gotten their news from Fox or mainstream media as to the state of the adult industry rather than how it actually is.

I am appalled that you would even think that is how this industry is run much less your opinions on the models reasons and purpose for doing so. In fact - and this will be hard for you to believe there are more intelligent models out there who made a logical decision - well thought out on what they wanted. Those who are in the industry would know that - any to finish off - obviously you have no concept of the resources open to models for help should they fall prey to anyone https://pineapplesupport.org/

Finally - what you fail to realize as well is IF any producer/person is found to treat their models anything less than professional the general rule of thumb is very few if any will work with them again. Doesn't matter who they are fired.

Of course you won't believe any of this - but our opinion of models is far better than yours apparently.

[dUbster]

Awww poor lightspeed cock-sucker Steve will have to shutdown his deepfake crap site

[2MuchMark]

No one in adult who claims to be legit should have any problem with this law whatsoever.

It's simple.

Deepfakes are created using genuine images of real people, including celebrities, which are then superimposed onto porn actors in order to create pornography. The celebrity images were never authorized or licensed, and neither the celebrities nor anyone else ever gave their approval. Consequently, Deepfake videos and images are probbaly violations of copyright laws.

The actors featured in these videos were compensated for their appearances in those specific scenes. However, altering their likeness and substituting it with someone else's was likely not stipulated in their contractual agreements.

Anyone appearing in "Revenge Porn" videos has the complete right to sue everyone involved into oblivion for using their images in my opinion.