[ SECRET POST #4047 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4047 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02. https://i.imgur.com/X94vZlP.jpg
[linked at OP's request for pics of raw meat and stuff]


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 08 secrets from Secret Submission Post #579.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah who cares about consent and dignity if they are famous. lets put their face on a porn actress and make it look like your favorite tv or movie star is getting fucked up the ass by a pig. And if the famous person complains we will just body and kink shame them until they no longer have a career. But I am sure no woman would complain because we all know how well they are treated in Hollywood and society in general.weq

[philstar22]

This.

[(Anonymous)]

do you have similar objections to fanart that depicts famous celebrities (or characters that they've played) fucking?

If not, where do you actually draw the line between that? how much realism is too much?

[(Anonymous)]

I have no problem with fanart of fictional characters. But fanart of actual people/celebs in their personal lives? Yeah, that's pretty fucking creepy.

Though at least for fanart you can tell it's fake, but this realistic looking porn that some people are going to believe is real... how can you defend that?

[(Anonymous)]

So, just paste the face of Wonderwoman onto a porn star. Problem solved.

[(Anonymous)]

get outta here, Greg Land

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not necessarily defending it. But, first, it seems less obviously wrong to me than it does to some people. And, second, I think it deserves us thinking hard about it and not dismissing it off hand, because if it's possible now, it's probably only going to get easier and more common from here on out.

In particular, two things that I would consider - first, when it comes to privacy, it's not clear to me to what extent something that's simulated can be considered a violation of privacy, because it's a simulation, not an actual depiction, of them. I don't see how you can violate someone's privacy by depicting them doing something that they're not actually doing. They're not involved in any shape, form, or fashion.

Second, if the objection is that people will think it's real, that seems like a really self-defeating objection. Because, surely, once everyone knows that this is possible, everyone will just immediately assume that when they see a celebrity sex tape that it's been faked and simulated, not that it's real.

I definitely would consider it distasteful. But there's a lot of porn that I personally consider distasteful and creepy, you know?

[(Anonymous)]

It’s a rights thing, even minus the skeevy aspects. Celebrities don’t only make money by appearing in movies and tv shows. They do ad spots and magazine spreads and all that stuff and get paid. They license the use of their likenesses on toys and stuff, and get paid. And if their face gets used in porn that they didn’t agree to, and they don’t get a cut from, it could damage their “brand” (if they’re known for family friendly fare or something) and also cut into potential earnings.

[(Anonymous)]

OK, so if it's a question of likeness rights and branding, how does that mesh with the ways in which we currently approach rights on a day-to-day basis? Because, I mean, I don't think that the Internet could be described as generally respecting intellectual property rights, or licenses, or copyrights, or things of that nature. Even when it has direct financial repercussions on the rights holders. So is this an exception to that general attitude? And if so, why?

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT—film and tv actors make money from film and tv. They also make money from liscensing their likenesses and stuff, but their bread and butter comes from acting onscreen. If studios can film a random handful of nobody actors and paste famous people over the top, it’s not gonna stay confined to porn. It could theoretically undercut the bottom line of a lot of Hollywood big names on a scale that fandom manips or fanfic can’t match.

[(Anonymous)]

Online music downloading destroyed the business models of a bunch of record labels and bands, but that didn't stop it from happening.

[(Anonymous)]

The only music I ever downloaded was live theatre bootlegs of shows I’d seen that didn’t have cast recordings for sale. I realize this makes me a dinosaur.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh my god everything's about goddamn money in this world now. *rolls eyes*

Gotta protect your precious ~brand~ these days, gimme a fucking break.

[(Anonymous)]

Personally I find it distasteful since they are real people who deserve private lives. But at least with drawings it clear that they didn't participate. But with how good AI is becoming and how depraved some people are even if it's proven that a live action pig fucking with your favorite star was photoshopped not everyone will believe it's fake. And something like that will follow their career around for a long long time. How often when you google a tv star's name does fanart pop up vs. some big scandal they were involved with even if they were innocent?

[(Anonymous)]

But with how good AI is becoming and how depraved some people are even if it's proven that a live action pig fucking with your favorite star was photoshopped not everyone will believe it's fake. And something like that will follow their career around for a long long time. How often when you google a tv star's name does fanart pop up vs. some big scandal they were involved with even if they were innocent?

But, once everyone knows that it's possible to simulate this stuff, why on Earth would anyone assume that it wasn't fake?

[(Anonymous)]

For the same reasons that some people want to believe that leaked nudes are famous people even when they are questionable. They want to believe it's true because it turns them on, they dislike the person so they think it's true to take "them down a notch or two", or they are just sick fucks who want to believe that everyone is just as sick as they are.

[(Anonymous)]

This. Tinhatters and nutjob stan fanboys cross enough boundaries and do enough fucked up shit without this kind of ammo.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT, but I would be fine with porn of characters that my favorite actors had played. Actually, minus the digital face editing, I’m pretty sure some must already exist, although I’ve never gone looking. But porn that had been edited to “star” the actors would be skeevy in the same way as RPF manips, with added “using actors’ likenesses against their will to make a profit that they don’t see a cent of” financial fuckery.

[(Anonymous)]

Porn parodies have existed for a very long time.

[(Anonymous)]

What does that have to do with what they said? Also porn parodies are obviously fake and not trying to sell it as THIS ACTRESS SECRET PORN VIDEO LEAKED!!!

[(Anonymous)]

So it's just a problem with the celebrity's rights to ownership of their own image, that people are profiting off of their likeness?

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT—well, I also think it’s skeevy to make porn of a real person or their likeness without their consent regardless of profit motive, because using someone to get off without their consent is, not rape exactly, but still non-consensual. But from a “an actor’s face is their fortune” capitalistic standpoint, that’s a big hurdle. If an actor negotiates a cut beforehand and is fine with photoshopped porn (and some probably will be, if it means money without having to actually shoot porn films) then I’m fine with it.

[(Anonymous)]

Two questions.

First of all, what's your opinion on online movie piracy and illegal streaming?

Second of all, what's your opinion of someone masturbating while imagining Chris Evans as Steve Rogers in The Avengers having sex with Robert Downey Jr as Iron Man in The Avengers?

[(Anonymous)]

I own a ton of movies on dvd that I bought new because I liked the films; if I’m curious about something I haven’t seen, I go to the library. I don’t pirate or stream stuff illegally. I don’t get into fights or sic entertainment lawyers on people that pirate all their favorite media, but I don’t approve.

I have no problem with someone getting off to mental images of imaginary characters as portrayed by specific actors. Or even fanart of same, provided no-one shares it with the actors.

I think film purportedly portraying specific actors using their pasteded-on-yay faces is gross in a way that most fan-media isn’t.

[(Anonymous)]

OK, but my point here is: if the reason that this stuff is wrong is because (1) it takes away actors' rights to make a profit off their likeness and (2) it's wrong to use someone to get off without their consent - which were the reasons that were offered - then it seems like those things are absolutely not unique to this new AI porn thing. Both of those things are absolutely endemic on the Internet. If those are the reasons that this is objectionable, then it's hard to see what makes it worse than vast swaths of the Internet, and basically all of fandom.

I think film purportedly portraying specific actors using their pasteded-on-yay faces is gross in a way that most fan-media isn’t.

OK, but *why*?