Copyright Infringement Etc.

[cerberus]

Thank you for separating this from the original thread, it is much appreciated.

I think what I want to see come out of this thread is a set of guidelines on what is and isn't OK on this forum. At the moment it is all a bit "anything goes" and there've been a few things that made me wince. But the moderators didn't act and I couldn't help wondering if we were putting the forum in jeopardy. We should also bear in mind that things posted here may be reposted elsewhere.

I would need specific examples of wince inducing posts to comment with any real meaning. But I will say that I have been following the threads here pretty closely and other than a few (intentional as it turns out) age related images, I haven't seen anything that caused concern.

Again, celebrity based work is nothing new. On the one hand, it could be considered flattering. But not everyone will see it that way. Such is life. The board, and by extension, the management is pretty much protected from liability by 'Section 230'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

If that is ever taken away, it's likely that this and many, many, many interesting places on the internet will shut down overnight.

It sounds as though you may have acted on, at least, some of my "wince inducing" posts already, it's the age thing that mostly makes me wince. I can understand some "young" images being produced by accident, as a lot of the subjects end up looking airbrushed and blemish free. This makes them look younger. It seems better now but ADetailer used to have a habit of making heads slightly larger, this also tended to make results look more childlike. So, even if you start with a mature woman's picture as source, the resulting image will look considerably younger (blondes moreso for some reason). To date I've only found one checkpoint model that gives a realistic skin texture and presents results that look the age you'd expect. This (I kid you not) is called "I Can't Believe It's Not Photography" - icbinpICantBelieveIts_newYear. It's a bit frustrating as it doesn't pose well but the faces are strikingly good.

I see section 230 seems to have you covered, but not the rest of us. But section 230 is specific to the US, we don't have anything like that in the UK and people have been prosecuted here. So I think we need to police ourselves and post what we are comfortable with and what fits in with our local rules and regulations.

[dlodoski]

....It sounds as though you may have acted on, at least, some of my "wince inducing" posts already, it's the age thing that mostly makes me wince. I can understand some "young" images being produced by accident, as a lot of the subjects end up looking airbrushed and blemish free. This makes them look younger. It seems better now but ADetailer used to have a habit of making heads slightly larger, this also tended to make results look more childlike. So, even if you start with a mature woman's picture as source, the resulting image will look considerably younger (blondes moreso for some reason). To date I've only found one checkpoint model that gives a realistic skin texture and presents results that look the age you'd expect. This (I kid you not) is called "I Can't Believe It's Not Photography" - icbinpICantBelieveIts_newYear. It's a bit frustrating as it doesn't pose well but the faces are strikingly good.

I see section 230 seems to have you covered, but not the rest of us. But section 230 is specific to the US, we don't have anything like that in the UK and people have been prosecuted here. So I think we need to police ourselves and post what we are comfortable with and what fits in with our local rules and regulations.

These are all very astute observations. Especially that last sentence. I'm sorry to hear that there have been prosecutions there. I don't really keep up with it, but I got a whiff of the internet privacy stuff the EU is implementing. Doesn't sound like fun at all.

I do try to keep QSF as 'responsible' as possible. For example, our Rule #9 (which still isn't understood by a lot of folks) is in place specifically to keep the board from being a jumping point for ill-advised behavior. But beyond that, there will always be grey areas to navigate - 'apparent age' being one of them.

But as someone I know who always asks when someone shouts "Kiddie Porn!"; where is the kid, and where is the porn? (I must point out that it has been noted many times that there technically, is no such thing as child pornography. There is pornography, which is legal and consensual. And then there is child abuse which happens to be filmed.)

[cerberus]

These are all very astute observations. Especially that last sentence. I'm sorry to hear that there have been prosecutions there. I don't really keep up with it, but I got a whiff of the internet privacy stuff the EU is implementing. Doesn't sound like fun at all.

Re: The prosecutions - no need to be sorry, those prosecuted fully deserved the prison sentences they received.
Generally the laws the EU comes up with are pretty practical and sensible; however, the UK is no longer subject to these rules, which hasn't really been that good a thing as our standards have dropped since leaving.

I do try to keep QSF as 'responsible' as possible. For example, our Rule #9 (which still isn't understood by a lot of folks) is in place specifically to keep the board from being a jumping point for ill-advised behaviour. But beyond that, there will always be grey areas to navigate - 'apparent age' being one of them.

I had to look up the rules to find what #9 was, but, yes, that one gets broken quite often.

But as someone I know who always asks when someone shouts "Kiddie Porn!"; where is the kid, and where is the porn? (I must point out that it has been noted many times that there technically, is no such thing as child pornography. There is pornography, which is legal and consensual. And then there is child abuse which happens to be filmed.)

Legal and popular terminology has always been different and where they intersect is pretty confused, especially across international borders. Thankfully, in the UK we don't have your Section 230, which, to me, looks like a cop-out to allow wealthy exploiters to escape punishment. We have our "Obscene Publications Act (1959)" which covers most of the media prosecutions and tends to end up getting the right people dealt with. Other than that people tend to get prosecuted for child abuse were appropriate.

[Duncan Edwards]

Legalities are viewed differently in the USA as opposed to the rest of the world. The U.S. Constitution was designed as a limitation on government and it's ability to impinge on the freedoms naturally granted to all people. In most of the rest of the world the framing document, where it exists, places limits on the citizens first. They are permitted what the ruling body allows them to have. This frequently results in Americans having a different view of what they can do.

[cerberus]

Legalities are viewed differently in the USA as opposed to the rest of the world.

Trust me, the rest of the world has noticed this. Over here in Europe we look at each other with pained expressions and say "don't worry they'll improve as they grow older!"

[dlodoski]

.....Trust me, the rest of the world has noticed this. Over here in Europe we look at each other with pained expressions and say "don't worry they'll improve as they grow older!"

Well, Churchill supposedly said;

"Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.”

However, he (most likely) didn't. But here's an interesting read none the less - https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/ ... ght-thing/

[cerberus]

Thought this may be of interest to people using AI systems. The move to legislation is under way. The link below outlines the EU plans for regulation of AI to come into force over the next couple of years. It seems fairly practical to me, with a couple of areas of concern, but I don't think this is likely to be the final state of affairs and regulations may vary from country to country. If the EU regulations seem to work I'd expect a lot of other countries to copy them.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... -consumers