Do you think C4S is using facial recognition ?

It all started with this tweet from my friends at RF studio

https://twitter.com/rfstudio_/status/1474345178693574686

Bondage custom clip with Leya is delaying for a day because c4s didn’t approve it. Reason: an unverified 3rd party participant on this little scene where Leya surfs google images.

Click to expand...

As we know, only a robot could be that stupid, so to me the logical conclusion is that C4S scans the face of all models and matches it with their ID (that producers now have to submit).

As a techie I find this cool, but it's also super scary for privacy and the fact that these data can leak or be shared with 3rd parties is a serious concern
The technology is there, we know that Amazon does this for cheap.

We can also fear that C4S becomes like Youtube and will censor clips if the Beatles are playing in the background or if the robot confuses a performer with an animal.

Scary things, and I'm surprised that I've not been aware of that, I knew about the ID checks since last Summer but I was (naïvily) thinking they were done by humans.

lmfao wild

It sounds like studios should make a mass exodus from Clips4Sale. There's really no good reason to force all of these ID requirements onto producers, and the information could easily be used for nefarious purposes.

C4S might be selling the data to other businesses in the same way that Facebook does with its users.

only a robot could be that stupid

Click to expand...

You'd be surprised.

the logical conclusion is that C4S scans the face of all models and matches it with their ID (that producers now have to submit)

Click to expand...

No. The logical conclusion is that they take their "everyone who appears on camera must be verified" restriction seriously, and that it's actually a part of the criminal code they based these restrictions on as well. I've read it; there are no exceptions for photos-of-photos or whatever. And honestly, I agree with it; what if the person in the photo is underage? They certainly didn't sign a release consenting for their image to be used in a porn video, which is what this is.

Furthermore (...and you're free to not believe this) they've said that they've actually got a verification team doing this manually.

There's really no good reason to force all of these ID requirements onto producers

Click to expand...

There totally is, and if you think just not using Clips4Sale is the answer, I have some bad news for you: every content platform I'm aware of is/has implemented similar restrictions on their content.

I seriously can't believe you people are still taking issue with expecting producers to be able to prove that the models appearing in their videos have consented to be there. It's really mind-blowing how much issue this community takes with consent sometimes. Producers have always had to be able to provide proof of ID upon request; the fact that so many of them ignored this up until now doesn't mean they suddenly get a pass.

Phineas said:

There totally is, and if you think just not using Clips4Sale is the answer, I have some bad news for you: every content platform I'm aware of is/has implemented similar restrictions on their content.

Click to expand...

It's government overreach. And as far as the underage issue goes, there were already laws on the books to handle this. I'm aware that there's been a push legislatively and executively to crack down on underage related porn, but when considering how the Epstein-Maxwell situation has been playing out, clearly, the government doesn't actually care about busting pedos -- at least not wealthy or powerful ones.

Phineas said:

I seriously can't believe you people are still taking issue with expecting producers to be able to prove that the models appearing in their videos have consented to be there. It's really mind-blowing how much issue this community takes with consent sometimes. Producers have always had to be able to provide proof of ID upon request; the fact that so many of them ignored this up until now doesn't mean they suddenly get a pass.

Click to expand...

I take issue with any regulation carried out by authorities who have the wrong intentions, which is the government in general in most cases.

Consent is another issue, but it's rarely sorted out by additional regulation or enforcement.

Phineas said:

No. The logical conclusion is that they take their "everyone who appears on camera must be verified" restriction seriously, and that it's actually a part of the criminal code they based these restrictions on as well. I've read it; there are no exceptions for photos-of-photos or whatever. And honestly, I agree with it; what if the person in the photo is underage? They certainly didn't sign a release consenting for their image to be used in a porn video, which is what this is.

Furthermore (...and you're free to not believe this) they've said that they've actually got a verification team doing this manually.

Click to expand...

This is true - it's the reason why clips can now take ages to get approved and go live. Every clip now has to be watched from start to finish by a human, picking up on any slight infractions. It's totally impractical, given the thousands of clips uploaded every day, but it was one of Mastercard's requirements in order for porn companies to continue using their services.

MrMacphisto said:

It's government overreach. And as far as the underage issue goes, there were already laws on the books to handle this. I'm aware that there's been a push legislatively and executively to crack down on underage related porn, but when considering how the Epstein-Maxwell situation has been playing out, clearly, the government doesn't actually care about busting pedos -- at least not wealthy or powerful ones.

Click to expand...

It's actually overreach from the financial sector - possibly the most corrupt of them all. Having previously not cared who they were doing business with, they realised (in the light of MeToo, Epstein etc)
that scandals around consent and underage sex can reflect badly on them in the current climate. One deeply misleading New York Times articles was all it took for Mastercard to ditch pornhub overnight. They then decided to go way overboard in forcing procedures on adult content producers that are clunky and impractical to implement on a large scale. It's true that the adult industry needs to be regulated, but it should be the job of governments - not credit card companies trying to project a more virtuous self-image.

turtleboy said:

This is true - it's the reason why clips can now take ages to get approved and go live. Every clip now has to be watched from start to finish by a human, picking up on any slight infractions. It's totally impractical, given the thousands of clips uploaded every day, but it was one of Mastercard's requirements in order for porn companies to continue using their services.



It's actually overreach from the financial sector - possibly the most corrupt of them all. Having previously not cared who they were doing business with, they realised (in the light of MeToo, Epstein etc)
that scandals around consent and underage sex can reflect badly on them in the current climate. One deeply misleading New York Times articles was all it took for Mastercard to ditch pornhub overnight. They then decided to go way overboard in forcing procedures on adult content producers that are clunky and impractical to implement on a large scale. It's true that the adult industry needs to be regulated, but it should be the job of governments - not credit card companies trying to project a more virtuous self-image.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but companies like Mastercard often pull the strings of governments, so I don't see much difference there.

I believe there is a solution to dealing with companies like Mastercard that the movie Fight Club showed us, but it's not the legal way of doing so. It would be rather effective though (albeit bloody).

It's interesting, as I haven't published anything on C4S since the new rules I understand better.

That's one problem, having all the fetishes under one roof makes it harder for them to maintain their platform.

The fact that they keep the records is still a privacy issue to me, but it seems they have no choice

It depends on what kind of "Facial" you are referring to...