[ 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)]

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.