Personalized Fake Porn Now For Sale On Reddit

rgMekanic

[H]ard|News
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
4,934
The Reddit community deepfakes" which has been creating fake porn videos of celebrities using machine learning is now letter you make custom requests for a donation of bitcoin. While the legality of what they were doing was questionable at best, bringing commercial use into the mix could very well open them up to some serious copyright lawsuits, from both the adult actress/actor whose video is being used, and the celebrity whose likeness is being used.

We covered this back in December when it was first being talked about, but now it seems instead of it being a "hobby" as they were framing it as, trying to profit from someone elses work and likeness could get them into some hot astroglide.

Deepfake makers' creations infringe on both the copyrights of the porn performers, and the celebrities whose faces are taken from interviews or copyrighted publicity photographs. Duan told me that in cases of copyright violation, one of the best ways to prove wrongdoing is through financial payment processors, such as credit card companies or banks. “Financial institutions are generally single points of failure for people trying to hide improper activity,” he said.
 

lilbabycat

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
3,810
Deepfakes which are done well are very fappable. As the technology progresses I hope to see its use in a wider range of scenarios, and by that I mean not just porn.
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
But Crypto currencies primary purpose is for good right? /sarcasm
 

DoggyDaddi

Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2002
Messages
783
cue Trump denouncing his newly released (vomitfest) sextape with Stormy Daniels as 'Fake Porn' in 3...... 2........ 1........
 

SighTurtle

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2016
Messages
1,412
Good old Reddit admins, I suppose they think the incoming publicity will be good for numbers.
 

Chunder

Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
519
Hopefully, these people have values and set limits to this. Would be pretty easy to create child pornography with it, which would then be a legal grey area since its fake. Plus the effects of it are still in question, what little studies were allowed to be conducted with those with the condition are split 50/50 on whether child pornography stops child abuse, or just makes them want the real thing.
 

DedEmbryonicCe11

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
1,589
People have been doing this with still images since at least the 90's with laughable results. Maybe 5% if that takes more than a couple seconds to recognize as an altered image.
 

RPKYGK

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
89
Not that I look at these kinds of things, but when I looked at these kinds of things the effect was unrealistic and unnerving. I thought the uncanny valley of dead celebs in movies was bad. This was worse, I think the tech has a ways to go.
 

oldmanbal

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
2,261
People have been doing this with still images since at least the 90's with laughable results. Maybe 5% if that takes more than a couple seconds to recognize as an altered image.
Not that I look at these kinds of things, but when I looked at these kinds of things the effect was unrealistic and unnerving. I thought the uncanny valley of dead celebs in movies was bad. This was worse, I think the tech has a ways to go.
You actually both touching on another topic that has become a serious issue in video game development and cgi. There's a certain level of detail you can achieve when trying to render something as a perfect human copy remade digitally that just doesn't click in the human brain. For some reason we are subconsciously programmed to instantly know that we are being deceived and that the visual is just a little bit off, even if it's astonishingly close. In the case of these deepfakes, they're not quite that believable, but it still rends that inner nerve screaming out to you that it's not real. Now if the image was modified to look like a lower quality bitrate video, with some blocking and artifacts, then you might be a little more hard pressed to see a difference. In terms of humiliating someone, that type of level is probably achievable by a really well done deepfake. However to make the world think that donald trump made a sex tape with vladamir putin, in russia, not so long ago, we have a long way to go.

As far as a novelty, this is just the next logical step evolution wise from your 4chan /r type xrays and shops that give a similar concept still image. Only problem is instead of being a fun way to waste some perverted time, people just want to charge and make money off it.
 

umeng2002

Gawd
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
923
As much as I like porn, nothing is better than the real thing. Instead of paying someone $100 for a deepfake, take a girl on a date.
 

thesmokingman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
6,120
if your paying for porn, you may as well pay* for sex instead.




*where legal
Yea. There's Memorex and then there's actual hookers and blow!

But then the counterpoint is that if they're paying for fake porn, then they probably can't attract the real.
 

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,683
Deepfakes which are done well are very fappable. As the technology progresses I hope to see its use in a wider range of scenarios, and by that I mean not just porn.
It's already begun, there's a sub-sect of the deepfakes community replacing actors with Nicolas Cage.

http://www.indiewire.com/2018/01/nicolas-cage-machine-learning-algorithm-deep-fakes-1201923224/

New tech tends to start with porn until moving onto what is ultimately the real purpose for the tech. This is that purpose.
 

deton8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Messages
431
Why is it illegal? (serious question)

If a pornstar had her features surgically altered to an exact reproduction of a celeb, would that be infringement? Would it be infringement if you and a wife shot a sextape and altered the faces to Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton for "personal use"?

I get how someone can legally own their likeness, but where is the legal definition of likeness when there is partial but not total similarity? If it's obviously someone else's body, or hair, or ears, or whatever, then the likeness is only partial. Why does the legality of the act hinge on the fidelity of the fake? Or is it just that money is changing hands?
 

Verge

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 27, 2001
Messages
6,621
Interested in seeing how good these look. All been taken down now. I did see one of Star Wars that looked insane.
 
Joined
May 10, 2016
Messages
617
Why is it illegal? (serious question)

If a pornstar had her features surgically altered to an exact reproduction of a celeb, would that be infringement? Would it be infringement if you and a wife shot a sextape and altered the faces to Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton for "personal use"?

I get how someone can legally own their likeness, but where is the legal definition of likeness when there is partial but not total similarity? If it's obviously someone else's body, or hair, or ears, or whatever, then the likeness is only partial. Why does the legality of the act hinge on the fidelity of the fake? Or is it just that money is changing hands?
It's probably wrong to call it illegal as there isn't a specific law against counterfeit Nicolas Cage's but you could launch a civil suit over harm done to the actor's reputation since that is intrinsic to their worth in their profession. Proving it is harmful could be difficult for some, a porn star would likely have more problems than a mainstream actor, but maybe not a Kim K.
 
Last edited:

DoggyDaddi

Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2002
Messages
783

ZodaEX

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
3,729
This isn't fake porn. Porn has been photo-shopped for well over a decade and it's not fake. An erotic depiction of real intercourse is still real porn even if it's shopped.
 
Top