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."
There's no quality control on Internet porn (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:There's no quality control on Internet porn (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There's no quality control on Internet porn (Score:4, Funny)
the subject at hand
I see what you did there.
Re: (Score:1)
They should be, without network neutrality it is very possible that the united states or states within the union would ban these websites.
This has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Example :
Trump is bad for just about everything, economy, environment, people etc. People want to argue about this even though it is obvious.
Javascript is the best scripting language. People still want to pretend it is terrible because it took over because it was so good.
I'm sorry but your examples are not as `obvious` as you think. Opinions differ, for a reason.
I'd not vote for Trump, but i also don't think everything he does is wrong. And actually, how he is pictured here in Europe is only testifying non-objective press.
Same for javascript. It's popular because it filled a niche, and came at the right time at the right place. Apart that it indeed is a horrible language.
Things are not always perfect. Things not always have to be perfect. And any/most downsides have an upsi
Re: (Score:2)
"Trump got chosen cause a majority voted so."
um ... no. Not even close.
Re: (Score:3)
It is actually a VICTORY for the United States...otherwise you'd have only a few states on either coast directing how the entire country is ruled and managed, and that is NOT fair and is not how the US was set up.
You are a citizen of your state first, and a citizen of the United States second.
With this country being so geographically spread out...each state has its own unique needs and views of the people and they need to be proportionally represented.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
US citizens don't vote for POTUS. They vote for people who vote for POTUS. The actual voters for POTUS picked Trump. Just because Liberals don't understand the system under which they are governed does not make them right.
Re: (Score:3)
The people (electors) once could vote as they saw fit, now they are required to vote like their voters wanted. They get removed and replaced if they vote different.
And I doubt being a liberal has anything to do with knowledge. Or does your lack of it make you a redneck?
Re: (Score:1)
The electors have always and still can vote as they see fit. They've always, as now, been removed if they didn't vote the way the voters wanted. Nothing has ever changed in that regards.
And I don't get why Europeans (I believe you're German), get in a hissy on the electoral college. It's the same system that's used at the EU level in Europe. The only difference is the US tends to use winner gets all where as Europe uses proportional voting for its electors. And if you don't like that, realize that it's
Re: (Score:1)
"Flamebait"
There ya go! Modded by a triggered democrat, every bit as weird as the Trump Supporter.
Thank god I won't have to see how you people ruin the planet!
Re: (Score:1)
Or is it damning of the way the states have implemented the Electoral College to deny suffrage to residents of "safe states"?
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I give up...WTF is a "safe state"?
I don't believe I've heard or read that term in the Constitution or other documents that formed the US Union....??
"Safe state" and "swing state" defined (Score:2)
In U.S. presidential election politics, a "safe state" is a state that consistently elects presidential electors of one party. Contrast with a "swing state", a state whose electors' party affiliation changes from one presidential election to the next. These terms do not appear in the Constitution, nor does the term "College".
Re: (Score:1)
nothing non-objective about that
What? Of course there is. Everyone sensible holds the opinion that Trump is a bumbling buffoon, but it remains a matter of opinion.
Re: (Score:3)
What? Of course there is. Everyone sensible holds the opinion that Trump is a bumbling buffoon, but it remains a matter of opinion.
Kinda throws your "everyone sensible" right out the window, maybe you meant to say "everyone who's a partisan hack" or something along those lines. Really, your post isn't any different then the people who say "What Trump said, is really really bad!" but when they're shown that it was say Hillary or Obama who said it suddenly panic when their bubble is popped. Or when someone is given a viewpoint/statement that they agree with, and suddenly discover that it's Trump who said it. That they again panic as th
Re: (Score:1)
Trump is just a Bad President and a Bad Person.
And I bet you can't even explain how, except that you just "know" because of what you've heard. Not looked up, not researched or anything else.
However Trump is on record stating things that are stepping on our rights, and encouraging fear who do not follow him, which is not the America that I want to live in.
And yet the Obama administration did exactly that? Remember when they used a FISA warrants to go after reporters? Yeah, I bet you don't. So you don't want to live in an America where the rule of law is actually enforced, you know like with border enforcement. Or maybe you want to live in a country like Canada, where the best you can expect because of left-wing gove
Re: (Score:1)
Well, Trump is an unthinking, self-aggrandizing, emotionally immature moron, who applies a reality TV show attitude to his presidency. With these qualities in mind, I deem him to be a woefully inadequate president.
Really? So what does that make of someone like Trudeau in Canada, or Nanci Pelosi(Dem), or Keith "ethnostate are great" Ellision(dem leadership) for example. I realize that by looking at the leadership and high-leadership in the opposing party has already set an incredibly low bar, it seems, that by his own actions he's managed to accomplish more then Obama did and actually went through the house and senate instead of imposing rules, regulations and unconstitutional orders by EO's.
I'm British. I have no particular love for the US's Democratic party. There's a reason virtually everyone outside the US sees Trump as a laughing stock, and it's not because they're all rooting for the Democrats.
Well for one thing, that
Re: (Score:3)
Do you consider those old school Republicans, people like John McCain, Jeff Flake, George Bush (both), and so forth, to be the real Republicans, or that the new upstarts from the tea party to be the real Republicans?
Remember, that majority of Republicans were opposed to Trump during the primaries, and a few started backtracking when Trump won, and even more backtracked after Trump won the general election, and even more followed him when they realized he was going to help with their dream wishlist. Backtra
Re: (Score:2)
Do you consider those old school Republicans, people like John McCain, Jeff Flake, George Bush (both), and so forth, to be the real Republicans, or that the new upstarts from the tea party to be the real Republicans?
None of those people are old school republicans, they're all neocons of some flavor. Remember? They're the people that had the loving adoration of people like David Frum who was a hard-core neocon and was bumrushed out by conservatives and republicans and was openly welcomed by democrats.
Remember, that majority of Republicans were opposed to Trump during the primaries
Remember that the vast majority of them were also neocons as well, or only RINO's? There were very few that were considered actually conservative or republican.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? So what does that make of someone like Trudeau in Canada, or Nanci Pelosi(Dem), or Keith "ethnostate are great" Ellision(dem leadership) for example. I realize that by looking at the leadership and high-leadership in the opposing party has already set an incredibly low bar,
They do not set a very high bar, but they set it quite a bit higher than Trump does. I'm a conservative who stays far away from the Republican Party, because they sold their souls and integrity for an election victory. I have a lot more admiration for Bill Crystal or a Never-Trumper than I do a fraudster.
it seems, that by his own actions he's managed to accomplish more then Obama did and actually went through the house and senate instead of imposing rules, regulations and unconstitutional orders by EO's.
The only things Trump has accomplished, besides the Tax Bill, has been through the executive action. Many of those were also rejected for their illegality, but hey, they score political points with his base
Re: (Score:2)
They do not set a very high bar, but they set it quite a bit higher than Trump does. I'm a conservative who stays far away from the Republican Party, because they sold their souls and integrity for an election victory. I have a lot more admiration for Bill Crystal or a Never-Trumper than I do a fraudster.
So why don't you explain how a person who's sold the democrat party out for personal gain(that includes the neocon Bill Crystal) aren't fraudsters. While you're at it, why don't you explain how a guy who has it all - literally, figuratively, monetarily, decided to run for president and is a fraudster.
The only things Trump has accomplished, besides the Tax Bill, has been through the executive action. Many of those were also rejected for their illegality, but hey, they score political points with his base!
Really? Guess that's why SCOTUS has turned around and told the lower courts to stop with the bullshit right? Or did you miss that part, or the part where SCOTUS turned around allowed the actions again admonis
Re: (Score:1)
I think there's a bit of danger in assuming Trump is just a mindless buffoon. In certain areas that he cares about, he appears startlingly shrewd (or amazingly lucky). In areas he's not so much interested in then he comes across as a buffoon. It could be an act, or it could be that in areas he doesn't care about that he's willing to say whatever silly thing is likely to be quoted by the media or earn him points with the reality tv fanbase.
This is a reality TV star who's spend most of his adult life doing
Re: (Score:2)
This is a reality TV star who's spend most of his adult life doing self promotion and staying in the spotlight.
Wow, you really have read nothing about the guy have you? You think the last 10 years have been most of his adult life or something. That's kinda where you sunk any point you had, just a FYI.
Re: (Score:2)
No, there are countless right wing Republicans who also think Trump is a buffoon. Or by "partisan" do you mean "anyone who is opposed to Trump?" Remember, Trump personally insulted just about every opponent in the Republican primary as well as the many in the Republican leadership. And anyone who thinks the Republicans are being given partisan marching orders by the DNC is deluedd.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Laughably partisan 'thinking' happens on both sides of the aisle.
Trump says lots of things he doesn't really mean, like "middle class tax cut"
Indeed, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]. Problem is, Trump says lots of things he doesn't really mean, like "middle class tax cut"
You mean kinda like this? [campusreform.org] It's not exactly an isolated indecent. Then again, considering the leadership of the DNC thinks that $1k-3k tax cuts for middle-class are crumbs, it's pretty easy to see what's going on. Why don't you explain how having a reduction in tax rates, really doesn't mean the middle class has more money.
Re: (Score:2)
$1k-3k tax cuts for middle-class are crumb
Very few people in the middle class will see anything like that. That those cuts also sunset in two years while all the other cuts that benefit the upper class are permanent shows where the intention lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Very few people in the middle class will see anything like that. That those cuts also sunset in two years while all the other cuts that benefit the upper class are permanent shows where the intention lies.
Uh, all middle class will see roughly that. That's why it's a flat-tax rate reduction. Those cuts also expire in 2025, not 2 years. The democrats refused to make the tax cuts permanent, so if you want to complain you should turn around and start there.
Re:ToS (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how every shitty company and their dog always point to their ToS like it's the word of god.. As if anybody gives a tiny rat's ass about them.
A pair of handcuffs are harmless...until you find them on your wrists.
Same goes for ToS. No one gives a tiny rat's ass about them...until you find yourself standing next to a lawyer in a courtroom spending thousands defending your ignorance regarding their word of god.
Re: (Score:1)
To be fair, the ToS are more about covering their own asses than anything user related.
Also in civilized countries (aka NOT the USA) most ToS nonsense isn't even enforceable to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess which country most of Slashdot's readers are in. ToS can be used offensively, to trick and harm the innocent and unwary.
Re: (Score:1)
Err.. not that I meant to imply that I would call people-who-put-other-peoples'-faces-without-consent-into-porn-videos "innocent."
Re: (Score:2)
I love how every shitty company and their dog always point to their ToS like it's the word of god.. As if anybody gives a tiny rat's ass about them.
A pair of handcuffs are harmless...until you find them on your wrists.
You should use a different analogy. In porn handcuffs are usually a good thing....
It took long enough! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 ...
Just call it what it is (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Just call it what it is (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the likeness of another person without their consent.
Jail the doppelgangers, while you're at it!
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
(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.)
Going off topic but then the topic sucks anyhow but people that say SNL has not been funny for years has not been watching it for years. The intro up to "IT'S SATURDAY NIGHT!" is usually funny, the guest host monologue has rarely ever been funny (Tiffany Haddish an exception, now that was funny!). Over all it's history the skits are hit & miss, no surprise there. What's been consistently hilarious, laugh out loud, is Weekend Update. Currently Colin Jost & Michel Che are doing a great job. I've b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm..I've been watching since not far after it started.
And over all..I find it MUCH less funny now.
And the current weekend update crew I find to pretty much be the LEAST funny crew pretty much in the whole history of the show.
I think there was one 80's season that had a guy one season that might have been worst, but I can't remember who that was....but these current guys sti
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Pornhub wants visitors... (Score:1)
...to go elsewhere, is what you're saying. They'll be back once they're more commonly accepted.
They're giving away their viewers (Score:1)
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?
You can't stop it.. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
or put your favorite politician or coworker into the Wicker Man
"NOT THE BEES!!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be hilarious, but you'll have to pay for it, because it is all "derivative work".
Only if you redistribute. Copyright covers redistribution, not consumption.
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't we been hearing about movies in the future being made with virtual actors? Has that day just arrived?
Strange (Score:4, Interesting)
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]
Don't think this has to do with any ToS (Score:2)
what (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Just for the lulz :)
In order to do this, you would need a porn video of President Trump. Do you happen to have any? Perhaps urolagnia themed?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
And Putin already did this....well, he put Hillary's head on Trumps body...but then he got a real tape of Hillary and now he can't tell the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Who in their right mind would look for one?
Re: (Score:2)