Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AI Communications Media The Internet

Pornhub Is Banning AI-Generated 'Deepfakes' Porn Videos (vice.com) 124

On Tuesday, Pornhub told Motherboard that it considers deepfakes to be nonconsensual porn and that it will ban these videos. "Deepfakes" is a community originally named after a Redditor who enjoys face-swapping celebrity faces onto porn performers' bodies using a machine learning algorithm. Motherboard reports: "We do not tolerate any nonconsensual content on the site and we remove all said content as soon as we are made aware of it," a spokesperson told me in an email. "Nonconsensual content directly violates our TOS [terms of service] and consists of content such as revenge porn, deepfakes or anything published without a person's consent or permission." Pornhub previously told Mashable that it has removed deepfakes that are flagged by users. Pornhub's position on deepfakes is similar to statements made by Discord and Gfycat, and in line with its existing terms of service, which prohibit content that "impersonates another person or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pornhub Is Banning AI-Generated 'Deepfakes' Porn Videos

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 07, 2018 @06:05AM (#56082307)

    Judging by how often a search yields videos that have none of the tags or anything to do with the search, other than having sexual content, I don't see how they can pretend to give a crap about this.

    It will be allowed, and tagged as something completely different, just like all the other videos uploaded.

    • You are deluded... these guys are making millions hosting legitimate porn I am sure they are taking down literally hundreds of videos every day with unsavory content or copyright violation. What exactly do you mean by quality control?
      • I think he means that if the uploader doesn't tell pornhub that a video contains the grafted-on face of $SOMEONE or otherwise reference that person other than showing their face, then there is a very low chance that pornhub's robots or even humans, will have the slightest idea that the video was intended to represent $SOMEONE, much less that it does so falsely.

        Upload a video of your teacher/neighbor/coworker/celebrity without any hints of the deception, publish a link to it on some other site that pornhub

        • Think about what all of the stuff you don't see on these sites (like ever) and the idea that there is "no quality control" appears ludicrous.
        • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          If your problem was to prevent or oppose such a practice, what could you do? At best, it's hard.

          Not really, no. You just use a primitive face detection algorithm to determine when a given face is in roughly full view, and combine this with a little bit of basic face recognition to reduce the number of duplicates, and now you have a series of frames that roughly represent the first time each performer's face was in full view. Then, you use any of a number of techniques for detecting similar photos from oth

  • by hyades1 ( 1149581 ) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Wednesday February 07, 2018 @06:57AM (#56082435)

    I am profoundly relieved, because that nasty Scarlett Johansson person will be unable to post videos featuring my face grafted onto the bodies of her lovers. The chance that my dignity might be outraged in this way been worrying me ever since "deepfakes" became a thing.

    • by thomst ( 1640045 )

      hyades1 confessed:

      I am profoundly relieved, because that nasty Scarlett Johansson person will be unable to post videos featuring my face grafted onto the bodies of her lovers. The chance that my dignity might be outraged in this way been worrying me ever since "deepfakes" became a thing.

      Somebody with points please mod parent +1 Funny ...

  • by DeplorableCodeMonkey ( 4828467 ) on Wednesday February 07, 2018 @06:59AM (#56082439)

    You are using an algorithm to appropriate the likeness of another person without their consent. The wording they've chosen, intentionally or not, makes it sound more like rape when it's really just a matter of defamation and IP infringement.

    The need to shoehorn every sexual matter into "consent" to determine the moral qualities is like how everyone goes "muh dumbocracy" over everything they don't like that a legitimately elected government does. These terms get so overloaded with rhetorical baggage that they become meaningless.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Not entirely sure it would be considered IP infringement if you are using photos in public domain or that you've taken yourself.
      The porn video used is probably copyrighted, but if you use your own amateur footage then you have the rights on it.

      Defamation is possibly to go for, but if the person already has pornographic content out there then it will be hard to argue that the new video caused any harm.
      You would have to argue that it would be shameful if people got the impression that you had sex with the oth

      • by tepples ( 727027 )

        Not entirely sure it would be considered IP infringement if you are using photos in public domain or that you've taken yourself.

        A work that does not infringe copyright under 17 USC can still infringe right of publicity [wikipedia.org] under the personality rights laws of the several states.

      • Well you asserting an all or nothing scenario. Certainly Pornhub will never be 100% effective at eliminating all deep fakes. But they can be good at removing the obvious ones. Also technology can be developed that detects these fakes not on facial recognition but detecting the techniques used. Detecting fake images using image analysis has long relied on clues in the data of the image not on a visual scan per se.
    • What it is, is using someone's likeness without their permission. Permission is just another word for consent, these videos are being treated the same way as revenge porn videos, where one or all of the people in the video did not consent to it being published. The only person putting rape into the equation is you.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      A more appropriate comparison is with hidden cameras. Secretly filming people in the nude or having sex and then publishing those images is at best a grey area in most places, if not outright illegal. While it's fine to take photos in public that happen to include other people, it's usually not okay to covertly point a camera up their skirt and take a picture.

      I guess you can argue that people shouldn't be embarrassed to be seen naked or having sex, but that's gonna be a pretty hard sell.

      So making a convinci

    • the likeness of another person without their consent.

      Jail the doppelgangers, while you're at it!

    • You are using an algorithm to appropriate the likeness of another person without their consent.

      That's why you pay a look-alike to use their image instead. Remember the movie L.A. Confidential?

  • Porn parodies (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    So, what about all of those "porn parody" videos? Those have been sold for years by commercial studios ("Who's Nailin' Palin" comes to mind). Will they be banning all of those videos, too? Are they passing moral judgment on SNL sketches, too (like Alec Baldwin's Trump sketches), even though they are not explicit? Can we expect demands for SNL to be banned in the future?

    (personally, I wouldn't mind if SNL were banned - they haven't been funny in many, many years. And even back then, their funny moments were

    • by mjwx ( 966435 )

      So, what about all of those "porn parody" videos? Those have been sold for years by commercial studios ("Who's Nailin' Palin" comes to mind). Will they be banning all of those videos, too? Are they passing moral judgment on SNL sketches, too (like Alec Baldwin's Trump sketches), even though they are not explicit? Can we expect demands for SNL to be banned in the future?

      (personally, I wouldn't mind if SNL were banned - they haven't been funny in many, many years. And even back then, their funny moments were very few and far between.)

      Parodies are clearly marked as such (I.E. actors will be credited). Photoshopping the face onto someone else and calling it "Secret Angelina Jolie sex tape" is misrepresentation at the very least, deformation and possibly slander as well. PH are just covering their arses by restricting it (which is ironic for a porn site).

  • by Anonymous Coward

    ...to go elsewhere, is what you're saying. They'll be back once they're more commonly accepted.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Considering that the resultant porn is not illegal all they're doing is encouraging someone to start up www.ai-gen-porn.com and make money off of it. My prediction for this sort of thing is that it will eventually be more popular than regular porn - who wants to see some random person get fucked when they can fap it to celebrity of their choice?

  • by sTERNKERN ( 1290626 ) on Wednesday February 07, 2018 @10:01AM (#56083003)
    You just give the opportunity for others to make their fortune with such a site that promotes these thing.. .There is a big demand for such a thing and it is going to be an easy task in the near future to create and use such a tool.
    • I imagine the future is a media player with the capability built in, so you can sub in whatever faces you want. (Presumably your own plus some celebrity in most cases).

      Hell, forget porn (for face swapping)... I think it'd be hilarious to watch movies and put myself, my family, and friends into the lead roles. Especially if we could also do something like Lyrebird and swap the voices, too.

      • or put your favorite politician or coworker into the Wicker Man

        "NOT THE BEES!!!!"

    • Haven't we been hearing about movies in the future being made with virtual actors? Has that day just arrived?

  • Strange (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Wednesday February 07, 2018 @10:45AM (#56083233)

    They have had and still have 'Celebrity' videos for years.
    Stolen videos are OK but fake ones aren't?

    https://www.pornhub.com/video?... [pornhub.com]

  • I think, perhaps cynically, that this has little to nothing to do with any 'Terms of Service', anyones' rights, or anything like that, I think this has to do with PornHub not wanting to get the living daylights sued out of them by celebrities (and perhaps media companies they work for) whose faces have been pasted onto someone making a porn video.
  • You mean that wasn't Scarlett Johansson in that video I watched.
    • You mean that wasn't Scarlett Johansson in that video I watched.

      You mean that wasn't Scarlett Johansson I f___ed in that video you watched?

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...