How do you programmatically discern between non-consensual adult images being shared against the subject's wishes versus images where they are somewhere public, don't own the copyright to the photo, but the law does not require the copyright holder remove or take down the image?
Cool idea, might need to pivot, regardless an interesting space to be in in these times.
EDIT: Appreciate the replies!
We do have ML models running in the background to detect abuse and the accounts are flagged to management to reach out to those customers. I don't want to go through all the cat-and-mouse strategies we may have to avoid people gaming them.
If someone has taken pictures for a company and given their model release for that image and its made its way to an adult site, then the individual should not initiate a DMCA. This is something we make our customers aware of before they DMCA content. Also, we know from first hand experience that site operators are quick to deny a DMCA if they do own rights for it. We've talked to them about this very situation.
Depending on the circumstances, who the copyright holder is is immaterial.
Also, IANAL! Not legal advice!
Loti uses state of the art facial recognition algorithm built with proprietary models. It takes into consideration a dozen facial characteristics in more than 1 angles to find matches from a collection of more than 50 million data sets. We keep adding millions of new data every month to make sure we don't miss out any privacy breach of your photo.
We’ve established that your website’s claim that there are 2.6 billion victims of revenge porn isn’t shared by people that work at Loti and it’s more likely ~400 million.
Given that fact, if you were able to get 1% of those people to subscribe (4 million) at $8/mo, you would be taking in $32,000,000 per month ($384,000,000 per year).
Would you not be the most profitable entity in the business of revenge porn?
Its not like your content once id'd and removed can't be uploaded again so why would there be recurring fees?
Here's the real study: https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/an-update-on-t...
Also, I don't think these numbers could be extrapolated to every country/region/culture on earth but they do seem to hold for european and english speaking markets.
Do you think that is a good idea?
For instance, if your alert email contains a link to the video, a bad actor who also had access to that email account now potentially had a blackmail opportunity.
I am sure you handle all this carefully but you have to admit it is fraught.
The internet and digital cameras being available to everyone was a mistake, when I come to power I'm just outright banning any transmission or storage of any photos of naked human bodies with the exception of medical reference pics. Or I'll just ban cellphones and home computers from civillian use entirely.
EDIT: I probably wouldn't ban the internet or home computers, but I'd at least completely ban porn, and use a tool like OPs to enforce such a ban with extreme prejudice. Anyone hosting or running a site with such content would face years of hard labor
It’s good for you to shine a light on the problematics aspects of this tech but this is a decades old industry so I think you are being a bit harsh by treating the poster as if they are creating a new problem.
Don't get me wrong, revenge porn is bad, but charging people money to take it down seems, well I guess better than nothing but let's hope a nonprofit starts maintaining a database like this and completely eliminates any market this site may capture.
Also abusing the DMCA for censorship, even in pursuit of a noble cause is harmful to society, though maybe not more harmful than revenge porn?
I'm really curious how our culture will continue to reckon with the ideas that
a) There are intimate images extant of many people. Many will become most.
b) AI powered face swapping and image generation will make arbitrary porn trivial on home-gamer GPUs in a few years.
We have to charge money to cover our expenses, most people don't realize how expensive GPU's are and that's the only way to do this cost effectively at scale. Even a non-profit would incur enormous expenses because there is just no way to do this cheap.
There is no abuse of the DMCA process here. Customers are asked to sign an affidavit and we don't allow them to DMCA outside of their facial profiles.
RE: DMCA abuse, it's probably within the letter of the law, the law itself is broken.
Bonus question: How does this all deal with twins? What's the miss rate on facial recognition anyway?
So the cloud providers will:
- make bank from the social networks hosting your content/likeness
- make bank from the offensive/exploitation AIs trying to exploit your content/likeness for gain
- make bank from the detection/defensive AIs looking for exploits of your content/likeness
The laws will never catch up.
People are warned that an image lives on the internet forever, this has been especially true for images that are not consensually taken or shared. We’re fixing that.
We created Loti (https://goloti.com), a service that uses facial recognition to help users search, find, and reclaim non-consensual intimate images and videos using a streamlined DMCA process we facilitate in our software.
Over 10 million people are victims of non-consensual image sharing in the United States alone. Those are just the people that were even aware that their images were being shared; research shows that up to 30% of victims were hacked or victims of hidden cameras and are unaware.
Our goal is to bring peace of mind that your private images stay private.
phrasing
