Ethics of captions and manips

[messaline]

OK ! It was not clear ...

 

[Wragg]

For what it's worth, I think you are probably right. I'm a touch busy right now but I hope to come up with a more considered response this evening.

So, sorry for the delayed response, nearly 12 hours later! And I've read the other replies since.

Firstly, as I say, you are correct, if you asked me or any of the moderators to produce documented consent from every single person engaged in every single image, we could not. And, @messaline, the images are visible to non-members if only in thumbnail form (which is one of the reasons that we so actively discourage full sized images).

And, also, you are correct to say that there should really be no distinction between celebrity and non-celebrity. Although I suspect that sometimes the obsession with some celebrities could lead some into deep waters.

However, in no case here are we deepfaking porn in order to humiliate, upset, or blackmail any of the persons depicted. If they have posed for pictures which they know will go on line, then in many people's view they then lose control over the images.

That is not, however the legal view. There exists in data protection the 'right to be forgotten.' I could pose nude in a crux scene tomorrow (don't panic, I won't! ) and the next day regret my decision. Especially, perhaps, when images of my lithe and sexy body start popping up all over the place possibly modified in various ways. But I can regret it all I like, I must take action before those images can start to be taken down - I must report my desire to have those images deleted to every single administrator of every single website.

If those administrators then refuse to take down those images, then maybe I need to see my lawyer, because in Data Protection law they must.

But, you say, what about the fully dressed individuals who have participated in bdsm play for the internet? Well, I don't think there's much of that here, to be honest, but the same principle applies, they can pop us a request to take down the image and we will do so.

It's a crime to take a picture of someone on the street (or lift it from their facebook profile), and attach it to a nude body undergoing bdsm. It's not a crime to transform it from one kind of bdsm to another, but if the person concerned objects, we have to take it down.

@messaline - we've had no complaints about any of your images!

 

[Morticia]

I am a newish visitor to the mighty cruxforums, so will of course bow to wiser and more experienced opinions here on the forum regarding the matter.

However my viewpoint on the ethics of captions and manips is, as long as it is legal and follows the forums rules then all is good.

If moderators of the forum decide something is not ok, then i see it as their house, their rules, the refs decision is final it is not open for debate.

There may be stuff that i am not into, i might frankly dislike, or possibly even find distasteful, but am adult enough to scroll on.

 

[gjpain]

but am adult enough to scroll on.

This is exactly what everyone should do, I never understood why there are people that finding something disturbing or disgusting or whatever and they insist on commenting on it and criticizing while they can simply scroll.

Thankfully on CFs this isn't the case there are only very few incidents in comparison with other forums/sites in which there are arguments and fights between the members all the time.

I think this is due to the good work of the moderators who are always one step ahead in order to prevent this from happening and on the other hand maybe the members behave more wittily.

Of course all of the above applies as long as we are referring to something legal as Morticia said above.

 

[Xavier Garnier]

Thank you so much Wragg for your thoughtful reply and also to Messaline for your understandable points. As you will see below, I am insufferably verbose in all debates, so I will try to throw these thoughts into the wind here and then maybe if I can resist the temptation I will be quiet for a while and allow more well-established members to consider the matter.

I repeat, we are NOT on a public site/forum : people who want to view our creations have to be registered in first !

You are right that people need to register first, but I would note that there are scores of active users and perhaps hundreds of lurkers. And as anyone in the world is allowed to register, and once an image has been uploaded to the internet it can be then re-uploaded elsewhere and circulated in various people's collections forever, I am not sure I agree with the idea that CF is not in some sense a very public forum.

I also wanted to clarify a little as I did not want to sound like I was targeting your work or anyone else's for that matter. There are two separate cases I want to examine:

Case #1: An artist uses images from a famous nude model and puts them into a crux context.

In this case two seemingly contrary stances can also be held at the same time about this, which is the case for me:

• stance #1: Practically speaking, this does very little or no harm: Few people in the world will ever see them, and anyone who does see them either will not know who the model is, and if they know who the model is, they are aware of that model's persona and understand that the images are merely the manifestations of someone's artistic imagination and that said model never had anything to do with crux or BDSM or anything. The images very well may never have any actual negative effect on anyone, do not ruin anyone's reputation or cause any shame, etc. etc.
• stance #2: Sexuality is a beautiful, rapturous, but potentially dangerous thing and BDSM in particular is taboo and poorly understood by society. Hard lines should be drawn in the sand somewhere, with no attempt to rationalize with them or make exceptions. When it comes to photoshopping artwork, I personally draw a hard line depending on if there was consent or not and I would not consider making any photoshopped art that crossed that line. However, I understand this is all ethically murky territory and some people did not draw the line in the exact same place as me and I do not assume that makes them "bad" or assume that this means their work has done actual harm to anyone, practically speaking.

For Case #1, even here the two stances are more or less easy to hold simultanesously, depending on the situation. For example, using Little Caprice shots, a model who has done BDSM shoots in the past and presumably would not mind, may not be nearly as questionable as using a model who has merely posed nude.

There is another case though:

Case #2: An artist uses images from random people pulled from non-adult industry contexts.

For example, a historical re-enactment convention is used to make crux artwork, with history buffs dressed as Roman legionaries re-purposed in the context of a BDSM fantasy. In this case, stance #2 becomes much, much more convincing and stance #1 weakens a lot, making it harder to hold both views at the same time. For both Case #1 and Case #2 I subscribe to the position that it is better to not create this kind of art without explicit consent from all models involved, but I think especially for Case #2 it becomes a lot harder to complement/attenuate my position by simultanesouly subscribing to stance #1.

That is not, however the legal view. There exists in data protection the 'right to be forgotten.' I could pose nude in a crux scene tomorrow (don't panic, I won't!

) and the next day regret my decision. Especially, perhaps, when images of my lithe and sexy body start popping up all over the place possibly modified in various ways. But I can regret it all I like, I must take action before those images can start to be taken down - I must report my desire to have those images deleted to every single administrator of every single website.

You make an interesting point about the right to be forgotten (which I believe currently is codified in the GDPR for Europe and does apply to large companies.) The quandry I see with this line of reason is that I think this is not really a data-protection issue. We are not merely talking about e-mail addresses and so forth stored on a server, but rather about pornographic representations of non-consenting individuals. I think there is an implicit assumption in society (which is becoming less implicit and is starting to be codified in law) that one does not need to go on a quest to express displeasure to every web administrator on the internet where said photos of them may be found. (Not least because in some cases particularly well-done images may be spread so far and wide that it becomes impossible to track them all down, and what's more, they can be re-uploaded at any time in some other location by people who have saved the images.)

Rather, I think the prevalent view in society is that photographic pornographic representations require consent before they can be uploaded in the first place.

Well! I see I was even more verbose than usual and so I will try to step aside and allow more established members to consider the issue.

 

[fallenmystic]

However, in no case here are we deepfaking porn in order to humiliate, upset, or blackmail any of the persons depicted. If they have posed for pictures which they know will go on line, then in many people's view they then lose control over the images.

However my viewpoint on the ethics of captions and manips is, as long as it is legal and follows the forums rules then all is good.
If moderators of the forum decide something is not ok, then i see it as their house, their rules, the refs decision is final it is not open for debate.
There may be stuff that i am not into, i might frankly dislike, or possibly even find distasteful, but am adult enough to scroll on.

This is exactly what everyone should do, I never understood why there are people that finding something disturbing or disgusting or whatever and they insist on commenting on it and criticizing while they can simply scroll.
…
Of course all of the above applies as long as we are referring to something legal as Morticia said above.

The point in question, at least to me, is not legality of the matter, or that I feel disgusted by such images themselves - I don’t post photo manips involving real people, so I don’t need to fear to get sued for that. Also, it’s not a matter of taste either since I’m into all sorts of extreme fringe kinks myself and I’d be the last person to criticise others for having a different taste than mine.

The boundaries of legality are smaller than those of morality, or those of forum rules for that matter - I can surely walk the fine line and be a complete annoyance to everyone without getting sued or banned if I choose to, for example.

Instead, the point in question is the matter of being respectful of others. The fabric of society, no matter if it’s a country or a small online community like CF, stands on the assumption that most of its members will try to be nice to each other and act so according to the common sense.

When someone posts a nice family photo on the internet, it’s a common sense that they don’t expect someone to turn it into a porn material, and they would likely be upset if they knew it happened. Are we really that desperate for sexual stimulation so as to seek it even at the expense of others as long as they don’t sue us? That’s the line I refuse to cross and hope others to do the same.

I will try not to prolong this discussion any further because I have already said what I wanted to say about the subject, and like you, I don’t visit CF to preach morality but to enjoy kinks. I am glad that this problem has gotten a due awareness and content that the moderators will enforce the rule that already exists, but so far not always adhered to.

 

[Wragg]

You're right that once the cat is out of the bag it's hard to recapture it, but that doesn't make everyone who reposts the images a criminal, nor the administrators of the website who, realistically, can only respond to complaints.

Yes, artists who use any photographs in their work need to take care, especially of people in crowds 'observing' what ever they have depicted in the foreground.

Yes, we will delete images that we reasonably suspect use non consenting subjects, if those subjects are under age our enforcement will be stronger. Indeed we do attempt to keep the images broadly legal.... though laws differ internationally.

But, as @fallenmystic has just said, on the whole most of us are compassionate towards our fellow humans, and if upset is caused we will do our best to put things right.

The site is intended to be a safe place for us to fantasise while causing the least possible harm to anyone who does not happen to share our particular interests. Or those that do, for that matter - talk of real nailing for instance will be deleted..

So relax, enjoy the site, hit 'report' on anything that troubles you, and leave the rest to us.

 

[rieo]

It is interesting that my original post has led to such an involved discussion of legal matters. This is not something I expected, although I guess I should not be too surprised, especially given that it is something that moderators have to actually consider. Personally, I have zero interest in bringing the eye of the law here. I like this place. My original motivation was more one of personal ethics. There is a lot of media out there that I would love to repurpose into kinky art, I just don't feel entirely morally right in doing so because of a lack of consent. This is somewhat hypocritical of me, because I have certainly many times enjoyed such art when it was made by others. I guess there is something about the more involved act of making the art yourself that makes me ponder these matters more closely than I would with others' art. There might also be a factor of, "well, this other person's art already exists so who cares, but if I make new art I'm bringing a new thing into the world". Which is also a bit hypocritical of me, since those other people's art that I enjoy would maybe not exist if they had thought on similar lines as myself. I made this thread because I genuinely do not know how I feel about the ethics of these things. I appreciate everyone's opinions.

 

[gjpain]

Rather, I think the prevalent view in society is that photographic pornographic representations require consent before they can be uploaded in the first place

This is why, before I create a manip using pictures sent to me by members, I always ask them two questions. First, I ask them to confirm that the picture is of themselves and not someone else. Second, I ask for their written consent to use the picture for creating the manip. I’m not sure if this holds up legally, but it’s an additional precaution I take.

For example, using Little Caprice shots, a model who has done BDSM shoots in the past and presumably would not mind

Have you ever thought that Little Caprice and Barbaria could be actually the same person?

 

[Wragg]

Have you ever thought that Little Caprice and Barbaria could be actually the same person?

Little Caprice is prepared to swallow

 

[Wragg]

This is why, before I create a manip using pictures sent to me by members, I always ask them two questions. First, I ask them to confirm that the picture is of themselves and not someone else. Second, I ask for their written consent to use the picture for creating the manip. I’m not sure if this holds up legally, but it’s an additional precaution I take.

It sound like you are exercising due diligence to me.

 

[gjpain]

Indeed, I try my best to avoid unnecessary trouble. But the legal aspect is only one part of it, the moral issue, as fallenmistic rightly pointed out, is equally important.

This is why I make an effort not to download pictures, or if I do, I delete them later and, of course, never share them with anyone else. When someone trusts you with their photos, it’s extremely unethical to betray that trust.

There was one occasion when a very active and seemingly "reliable" member pressured me hard to see the manips I had made for someone here, but of course I refused to do it. It seems that my mistake in the first place was mentioning that I had those pictures, but it came up as part of our conversation at the time.

 

[Zephirantes]

I get really turned on by sexy pictures that have captions added to them to make them better at fulfilling our sort of kink, and by photo manipulations, and all that sort of stuff. I have a lot of ideas about things I could create along those lines. But I'm fundamentally a nice guy at heart, and I have a bit of an ethical dilemma. Some of the hottest photos out there that I would like to add captions to, for example, are photos that are not professional porn, they're just random pictures of girls having a good time stripping or being at parties or whatever. And I don't feel morally right repurposing such photos for creating kink images. Even with actual professional porn images, I feel a bit troubled about repurposing them. The women consented to having their pictures taken in that context, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they would consent to having them repurposed into kink art. For me it would be really hot, but I'm not sure if it's right to do.

What do you think about the ethics of this sort of thing?

Obviously, using AI images would solve this whole problem. But AI is not quite there yet, AI porn images still look distinctly unreal. Some are very sexy, but it's still not quite the real thing. If and when that changes, the explosion in porn will be amazing.

I understand you feelings, and yet, I think that sometimes we make too much of a fuss about our body, our image, and so on.
In a way, I think that our image, as our reputation, is not "ours", in the sense that should not be our property.

I'll try to explain better.
When I see a person, his or her image is recorded in my mind.
If I were a painter and if I had photographic memory, it might happen that I would portray her even months or years after I accidentally met that person on the street.
This is precisely because the image of that person, in a sense, is not hers.
It is an impression that remains, to some extent, in the minds of all the people she meets: if there were no other people, our image would not exist (okay, mirrors aside), because our image does not exist per se except in people's minds.
We are all, in fact, both observing subjects and observed subjects at the same time: we have to take note of this and accept it.

What, in my opinion, absolutely must be prevented is to pass off reworkings of images of a real person, say Mrs. Mary Jane Grasshopper of Kansas City (hope it doesn't exist a ), for her real photos.
For example, one that would stick Ms. Grasshopper's face over the body of a girl intent on, I don't know, being double penetrated by two men, just to go to an extremely explicit and pornographic thing.
A somewhat extreme sexual act but within the realm of the possible: because of that, there will be people willing to really believe that Mrs. Grasshopper did such a thing, and this
Mrs. Grasshopper, in my opinion, has the full and complete right for it to be clear to everyone that she has never been doubly penetrated by those two gentlemen.
In other words, she must have the right not to be defamed, not to be attributed acts that she did not commit, situations in which she did not find herself, words that she did not say, and so on.

But, again in my opinion, Mrs. Grasshopper should not have the right to prevent others from imagining led scenes with her as the protagonist in their own perverse minds (how do you prevent people from imagining what they want? there, exactly...), or from painting it, drawing it, or recreating it with AI.

In this sense, portraying Mrs. Grasshopper being crucified, for one thing, should in my opinion be an acceptable thing to do, insofar as it is obviously clear that Mrs. Grasshopper was not crucified (thankfully!), because it is a thing practically impossible.

Just my humble opinion.

PS: AI doesn't solve the problem, at least not now.
The problem with creating many pictures with current AI, is consistency: unfortunately, the AIs constantly change the appearances of the subjects they portray and, alas, the best way to force the AI to remain consistent, at the moment feed them with the name of a subject that is... a VIP. Someone well known.
For instance, I attach a couple of pictures based on the image of a porn star (India Summer, I like her a lot!) famous enough to be known by the AI generator I used.
My prompt: India Summer, naked, crucified, wooden cross, arms stretched out, nipples, toned belly, abs, pussy, vagina, labia, clit, white background.
As you can see, this way the subject appearance remains consistent along the two images, and one can use them to create some sort of story, like in a comic book... (hint, hint)

 

[fallenmystic]

But, again in my opinion, Mrs. Grasshopper should not have the right to prevent others from imagining led scenes with her as the protagonist in their own perverse minds (how do you prevent people from imagining what they want? there, exactly...), or from painting it, drawing it, or recreating it with AI.

……

PS: AI doesn't solve the problem, at least not now.
The problem with creating many pictures with current AI, is consistency: unfortunately, the AIs constantly change the appearances of the subjects they portray and, alas, the best way to force the AI to remain consistent, at the moment feed them with the name of a subject that is... a VIP. Someone well known.
For instance, I attach a couple of pictures based on the image of a porn star (India Summer, I like her a lot!) famous enough to be known by the AI generator I used.
My prompt: India Summer, naked, crucified, wooden cross, arms stretched out, nipples, toned belly, abs, pussy, vagina, labia, clit, white background.
As you can see, this way the subject appearance remains consistent along the two images, and one can use them to create some sort of story, like in a comic book... (hint, hint)

I think there’s an important distinction between imagining, or even portraying someone and sharing such images on the internet in this matter.

As to AI, it’s been quite a while since they made tools that can reliably preserve character consistency between generations. It’s just that you can’t do it using prompting alone, and not every online service provides more advanced tools than that.

 

[Zephirantes]

I think there’s an important distinction between imagining, or even portraying someone and sharing such images on the internet in this matter.

There's that too, right.
Still, I think that Mrs. Grasshopper should just deal with the fact that someone uses her appearance to imagine something.
The important thing, IMHO, is that whoever sees those images know that they cannot possibly be real.

As to AI, it’s been quite a while since they made tools that can reliably preserve character consistency between generations. It’s just that you can’t do it using prompting alone, and not every online service provides more advanced tools than that.

That's good to know.
I'm not skilled enough to use anything more complex than just the prompt-based web tools available.

I hope that more advanced options and possibilities are made easily available too, so as to free us from the need of referencing some well-know person.

 

[rieo]

Ethics? Leave them at the door. There is no place for ethics here. Allow yourself to enjoy whatever turns you on

I would love to feel that way, but I don't. I do want to make clear that this question that I asked is only about my own comfort. I have zero desire to police others, indeed as I have said, I often enjoy when other people make images in the same way as my original post describes. I just find that I have some qualm about making such images myself. Which is hypocritical of me. But like I said, I made this post to explore these things, I don't have a clear idea of what is right or wrong here, but it is an interesting discussion.

 

[thehangingtree]

I would love to feel that way, but I don't. I do want to make clear that this question that I asked is only about my own comfort. I have zero desire to police others, indeed as I have said, I often enjoy when other people make images in the same way as my original post describes. I just find that I have some qualm about making such images myself. Which is hypocritical of me. But like I said, I made this post to explore these things, I don't have a clear idea of what is right or wrong here, but it is an interesting discussion.

It has been discussed enough here. Give it a rest

 

[rieo]

It has been discussed enough here. Give it a rest

Why so? I do not wish to impose, and I will respect your request after this comment, but to me it seems like an interesting discussion. Do you think that it is a bad vibe or something? If you feel this way because you do not wish this discussion to bring up possible issues for the forum, then I totally understand and I wish I had never even made the thread. Because like I said before, this is just something I find to be an interesting issue personally, but I have zero interest in doing anything that would hurt the forum. Feel free to direct message me if you would like.

I had no idea when I made my original post that this would stir up some discussions about forum moderation, rules, or so on, I meant what I said, which is that I want to make sexy pics about women getting some good bruising but I feel a few qualms about using random online images to do it. I am sorry if this created a bit of a hornet's nest, but that was not my intent. I think my post has stirred up some good discussion, but like I have said before this is all in the context of me loving this site. I was just trying to use the BDSM discussions forum for what I think is its intended purpose, BDSM discussions. Which can include discussions of what people emotionally feel about engaging in various kinds of BDSM activities.

 

[thehangingtree]

Why so? I do not wish to impose, and I will respect your request after this comment, but to me it seems like an interesting discussion. Do you think that it is a bad vibe or something? If you feel this way because you do not wish this discussion to bring up possible issues for the forum, then I totally understand and I wish I had never even made the thread. Because like I said before, this is just something I find to be an interesting issue personally, but I have zero interest in doing anything that would hurt the forum. Feel free to direct message me if you would like.

If you are not comfortable with the site, You may want to find one you prefer...

 

[rieo]

If you are not comfortable with the site, You may want to find one you prefer...

I am completely comfortable with the site. I think that you are misunderstanding me. There is nothing here that I am uncomfortable with. I love this site. I am not necessarily comfortable, personally, with myself creating certain kinds of images based on other people, but I am not uncomfortable with other people doing it. I think that you are misunderstanding my writings as being some kind of attack on this site. They are not, in the least bit. I wrote what I wrote to explore my personal feelings about making manipulations kinds of content, note that I have not criticized other people for making it at all. And why would I? As I have said, I enjoy those other people's manipulations. Kind of the whole reason why I made my original post is that I wanted to explore why it is that I enjoy other people doing it but I feel a certain ethical dimension in doing it myself. I am pretty extremely libertarian when it comes to free speech, but at the same time I have a sense of morality that is not necessarily right or wrong, but it is there, and I thought that hey, why not explore it on the BDSM discussion forum... for what is it for, if it is not for BDSM discussion? One of the things I love about this site is that it is both hot in a direct way, in the sense of sexy images and stories, but alongside that it is also interesting in that there are real people discussing their thoughts and feelings about their kinks.

Also, sorry, I know I went back on "I will respect your request after this comment", but I felt like I needed to follow up on things.