AI ModelForge is a platform that teaches men how generate their own AI influencers.
See full article...
See full article...
Women sue men who used their Instagram feed to create AI porn influencers
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
I hope they get sued into oblivion. There’s not even a logical reason to do this unless your intent is to impersonate. Which it doesn’t appear is even the case here so why?
Upvote
114
(116
/
-2)
Apparently they not only stole likenesses, but company names as well. There's at least two companies called "modelforge / model forge" that have nothing to do with this sordid business, and a platform called creatorcore that sells management tools for influencers and their agents and doesn't seem to have any direct AI connection at all. In fact, your in-article link to creatorcore is to that one - there's no AI tools there that I could see, just lots of reporting tools. You should get that fixed.
I hope these shitheads get sued by EVERYONE.
I hope these shitheads get sued by EVERYONE.
Last edited:
Upvote
99
(100
/
-1)
Surely face and tattoos would be an easy thing to claim impersonation. The odds of someone having the same tattoos and face are basically zero surely. Sucks that it's so easy to get away with on that basis. Hopefully they get prosecuted.
Upvote
83
(84
/
-1)
the men sold courses online training other men, including the John Does named in the suit, how to make their own AI-generated influencers based on real women’s photos
sociopaths using tools made by sociopaths to titillate other sociopaths.
it's the circle of life
sociopaths using tools made by sociopaths to titillate other sociopaths.
it's the circle of life
Upvote
111
(113
/
-2)
Scum, and the Generative model solicited to create the deep fake NCII bears blame too.
Upvote
23
(23
/
0)
The more I look into this, the more I think this stuff is already gone, with the domains sold off to legitimate companies. The only reference that appears to be current is Tavira, which is indeed all kinds of gross. A lot of the supposed courses are long gone from whatever Whop is, too.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
MilanKraft
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
So it would seem.
Also, traditionally the names John and Jane Doe are used in legal proceedings and related press activities to protect the victims of crimes, especially ones involving sensitive aspects.... can someone explain what I missed in the article? Why would the scumbags — many of whom are presumably 18+ or in high school (old enough to not get a pass IMO) — who shamelessly used this woman's likeness (and that of others) for purposes of creating unauthorized imagery and digital "influencers", be given protection in this way?
[Edit: seems the answer, in part, might be "because the plaintiffs don't have all the names of the accused yet." Thanks to SweepHand for the assist.]
Unless they're still in junior high or something, name the fuckers! In addition to the lawsuits and any criminal charges that might result, let them enjoy being doxxed, having their likeness misused, etc. They could use a heavy dose of that as part of what will hopefully be a legal curb-stomping. These assholes, at this early stage, absolutely need to be made example of, along with the companies enabling this despicable crap.
(Also, have we reached peak "AI is going to be so amazingly good for humanity" yet? /s )
Last edited:
Upvote
-9
(13
/
-22)
Upvote
115
(117
/
-2)
Sometimes John Doe is used as a placeholder for people whose names are still unknown to the plaintiffs.
Upvote
96
(96
/
0)
This is beyond disgusting. I am a women who practices amateur photography, to the level of keeping my own home studio with strobes and backdrops. One of the consistent struggles with this hobby is the fact that the model who is most easily available to practice different forms or lighting or ideas is myself. Yet posting even the most innocuous photos online puts me at high risk for exploitation, to the point where maintaining social media for my portrait portfolio frankly seems more risky than it’s worth.
The downside? I’m limited in how easily I can connect with other photographers and I did have to figure out another online solution for sharing my portfolio with others. I lose the potential publicity I would get on social platforms. But I’ll take that trade off.
I am an older millennial. I’ve seen the early days of MySpace and the first iteration of Facebook and I was online with AIM was one of the main messaging platforms. Social media all feels like it’s stagnant and rotting today. Passive income streams producing slop to perpetuate a pipe dream that benefits only a few at the expense of many others. The sooner we can move away from this addicting poison as a society, the happier I’ll be.
The downside? I’m limited in how easily I can connect with other photographers and I did have to figure out another online solution for sharing my portfolio with others. I lose the potential publicity I would get on social platforms. But I’ll take that trade off.
I am an older millennial. I’ve seen the early days of MySpace and the first iteration of Facebook and I was online with AIM was one of the main messaging platforms. Social media all feels like it’s stagnant and rotting today. Passive income streams producing slop to perpetuate a pipe dream that benefits only a few at the expense of many others. The sooner we can move away from this addicting poison as a society, the happier I’ll be.
Upvote
117
(118
/
-1)
Yeah, pretty sure this is a case of they don't know who all the internet trolls are, yet, and are going to leverage the lawsuit to force ISP disclosures as the case proceeds.
Upvote
32
(32
/
0)
PatientZero
Ars Centurion
Don't the people you take photos of and post online, also have this risk? (Or all the photos you take of models kept private?)
Upvote
0
(7
/
-7)
I always love when criminals are super stupid and just say "go after the little folks because they won't bite back" so they don't have a defense of saying "We never said to do anything highly suspect!"
Again, these guys probably are thinking that they have the money and the people don't but the people can get the EFF or some other people's rights lawyer involved that does it for the rule of law and not for a pay-out and you're in trouble.
Again, these guys probably are thinking that they have the money and the people don't but the people can get the EFF or some other people's rights lawyer involved that does it for the rule of law and not for a pay-out and you're in trouble.
Upvote
19
(19
/
0)
I love (/s) how AI is able to take one of the most socially toxic things ever created (the "influencer") and somehow make it even more toxic.
I'm not a fan of calling everything victim blaming, but this does seem a bit close to that. Anyone should be able to post pictures of themselves online without the risk other people are going to create deep fake nudes of them.
Upvote
73
(75
/
-2)
They do but the people who come to me for photos generally fall into one of three categories.
1. event shooting or street shooting. It’s innocuous enough risk is quite minimal. I have occasionally had people in this category ask me to take down photos before, but that has historically been due to subject self-esteem (ie they don’t like how they look) and not risk concerns.
2. Collaboration. Typically this is a model who wants to advertise the photos, or another artist who understands and has communicated expectations for online publication.
3. Boudoir and/or more explicit work. This is where artistic nudes and more planned sexualized work falls. It doesn’t get posted publically anywhere by anyone unless everyone involved agrees on where, level of access and explicit details on what portions of images can and cannot be shared. And for those unaware, this work frequently crosses gender boundaries and generally the risk boundaries are the same regardless of model gender. Guys like having naked photos taken of them, too.
I largely don’t post from any of those categories to social media anymore, tho others involved sometimes do, especially organizers for large events. Those are also the cases where gallery showings are most likely.
Because I do not currently seek to profit from or disseminate most of my portrait work beyond my personal website, model releases are not always something I use. Any work intended to be released in others’ portfolios (ie a model’s portfolio or a pro headshot or a professional collaboration with another artist) or explicit work generally does come with a signed model release between me and the subject(s) signing on publication/posting expectations.
Upvote
46
(46
/
0)
The only thing I know about instagram is it's for adding old timey filters to your photos. I never got into it.
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
She provides the context for why she is dismissive of your solution in the very quote you took. You don't event need to RTFA, its right there.
Upvote
30
(32
/
-2)
MilanKraft
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
Ok thanks for posting that. That would at least make some sense in this context.
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
It's a weird extension of the historically successful concept of the people who got rich from the Gold Rush of the 19th Century West in the US: Your odds of being successful were much higher selling the shovels and supplies to the high-risk gamblers known as miners.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
It's not that weird. While it is technically possible for the people conducting this action to be women, this is in the same line of other schemes to financially exploit men by teaching them how sexually exploit women. Same general principle as the pickup artistry nonsense, alpha-male influencers, and testosterone supplement peddlers; except instead of teaching the other men to be jerks, this goes straight for sexual assault on an industrial MLM level.
Also of note here: The schemes I listed above as adjacent do in-fact include some women who play the part and propagate them. While the men of these spaces are generally seen as exploited and manipulated into being jerks who need a reality check, a woman within these misogynistic spaces is assigned the social status of a "Pick-me" by critical outsiders. Where men are seen as exploited and manipulated into being jerks because of their unresolved issues, a status that is sympathetically understood despite being unexcused; a "pick-me," however, is social refuse, her actions are not sympathetically understood and only interpreted as adversarial malice. There may be women who do this sort of thing, they are regarded as categorically worse than the men who do it.
Upvote
22
(23
/
-1)
“It’s my face, my tattoos, on a different outfit on a slightly different body,”
Further on. "My tattoos" would imply the same no?
Upvote
29
(29
/
0)
Well we've got low key victim blaming and #notAllMen let's see if we can go for a shit take bingo with a "it's not actually them so I didn't see what the problem is" and "in fact there should be more nudity so no one cares you prudes".
Upvote
41
(41
/
0)
Oh, you sweet, Summer child. It gets worse. So much worse.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2026/03/world/expose-rape-assault-online-vis-intl/index.html
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Some people need to spend the rest of their lives in a cage watching the world move on without them. Others, who can't be shamed or rehabilitated, should face a firing squad for their crimes (after rotting in prison for some arbitrary amount of time).
I'll leave it to the reader to decide which punishment is more appropriate for these so-called men.
I'll leave it to the reader to decide which punishment is more appropriate for these so-called men.
Upvote
6
(8
/
-2)
Everyone today carries cameras in their pockets everywhere they go. If the technology exists to make passive income from deepfakes of any picture of any person simply standing in an innocuous and/or somewhat isolated location, do you really think that person’s choosing not to post a photo of themself would be a hurdle to a determined predator? Your view is outdated to the realities of today.
Heck, people take so many ridiculous selfies in public so obliviously I’ve snapped photos people are taking of themselves (ie their phone screens) live with my camera before just as a bystander. I ran into two teenagers staging a sexual encounter on a public street for photos like 2 days ago. You think their choosing to post those or not would have mattered if I had my zoom lens on me and felt the need to grab the shot?
Upvote
24
(24
/
0)
macosandlinux
Ars Praefectus
Social media with public profiles (plus all the data/PII harvesting) never was the right solution imho. Also how can you hope to share stuff just with your buddies when you got 9000 people watching?
Upvote
-18
(1
/
-19)
That’s not only some elephantine chutzpah there, but a douchebaggery of monumental proportions. I hope these assholes never keep another dime they earn
Upvote
18
(19
/
-1)
sigmasirrus
Ars Scholae Palatinae
How would those men have felt if someone took their likeness and used it to create humiliating videos and images of them and sent it to everyone they don’t want to see it? Where is the empathy…
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
(not OP)
It is a matter of reporting integrity. The John Does are unquestionably overwhelmingly men, but history knows that there are plenty of women out there who would not hesitate to make money targeting men with the images/bodies of other women.
Assuming only guys would use women's image is forgetting a certain G Maxwell person.
Reminds me to story of a touristic place in Italy, where the cops caught a group of women, who had a simple trick : two of them making out and being "inappropriate" in a public area, while a third pickpocketed the distracted men watching the show.
Upvote
-18
(1
/
-19)
sigmasirrus
Ars Scholae Palatinae
It wasn’t before GenAI. Sure one could photoshop something but that took time and some skill. Now it’s instant and zero skill. Cyberbullying was going to be an issue from the beginning, even as it is in real life. But this didn’t have to be a given.
The internet is the past now. We need to get back to real life.
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
So
So far, 100% of the named abusers are men, so there doesn't seem to be any reason to automatically assume that "John Doe" is incorrect
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
It is all about money, the whole get rich quick schemes predate every single one of us. Creating pornstars out of scraped content cuts out paying the pornstar. However unscrupulous and illegal, people behind these accounts can make easy money off of AI. They can create new accounts when taken down, upload the content to myriad platforms or encrypted channels. The market for this kind of stuff does exist. And with enough interest there is always groups on jurisdictions beyond the US reach that will keep doing it.
Sadly there is not much that can be done at this point beyond not posting public content from a security standpoint. Once they get your likeness, as the younger generation says, "You are cooked".
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)