Josephine Skriver

[TheDude2k]

JOJA Summer Challenge • Day 11 • Booty 🍑 | 4K

 

[TheDude2k]

JOJA Stories

[TheDude2k]

JOJA Summer Challenge • Day 12 • Upper Body | 4K

[TheDude2k]

JOJA Stories

[tonytally1985]

🥰

[TheDude2k]

JOJA

[AQWXSZ]

@cameron_hammond

 

[VS19]

Wow.  Thanks for those @AQWXSZ.   

[Kadae]

Censoring women like this is a crime. 😭

[TheDude2k]

Cameron should release the uncensored versions on his website.

[TheDude2k]

@vatras While you're at it, you might as well AI un-blur these...

https://www.bellazon.com/main/topic/17352-josephine-skriver/?do=findComment&comment=5561945

 

Input to ChatGPT: "Please unblur Jojo's 🍑"

[vatras]

23 hours ago, Robyc said:

This is not ok. Delete this. You will be banned. These are like fakes. AI or not. If Josephine or Cameron will post the uncensored photos, we will see then. I think it's borderline criminal what you have done.

 

I would like to get a mods opinion on that. Like you said, these are basically fakes that should be clear. Until I get an official statement from the mod team, I will delete them.

So could a mod pleas clarify if AI “uncensored” images are okay or not?

[TheDude2k]

I wouldn't go as far as to say that the deblurring of those images is criminal or even "fake" in the traditional sense of how the term has been used to identify obvious fake pictures.  If you apply that definition across the board, then technically all the pictures you take with your modern smartphone are fake because the pictures generated are not 100% based on the optics but rely on computational photography algorithms and HDR to provide the best looking picture.  Also, the "photoshopping" done by SI and VS and other editorials to make models look "better" could also fall into the definition of fake.  Heck, the filters people use for their selfies could also be considered "fake".  Lastly, native smartphone photo apps now have built in editing tools that "unblur" photos.  So yeah, can 'o worms could be opened.

 

I think it really boils down to fair-use and intent.  In this case, @vatras just ran the images through an AI app to remove the blur - his intent was not to deceive or make it fake, e.g., enlarging the body part or superimposing someone else's body part from another image onto the original.  So in my humble opinion, the deblurred pictures are OK.  I think a better categorization would be original vs. edited.  And you could also simply add a transparent watermark that overlays the photo indicating that it has been edited from the original with text like "edited" or "deblurred".  Just my 8 cents (adjusted for inflation) .

 

Carry on, folks!

[TheDude2k]

JOJA

 

📽️

Spoiler

[phenobarbie]

Using an AI to unblur the images isn't illegal or fake. Unless we get a complaint from the model/photographer I don't particularly care but use your best judgment. Obviously they were not released uncensored, whather that is because they are going to be in a publication at a later date or because Jo has requested they be censored I don't know.

Just clearly mark that they have been modified.

[PeJovan]

I'm surprised that everyone focused, on the blured parts of the photo. In terms of content, they are great. In my opinion, they lose heavily due to poor quality, resolution. Full of noise. And as for AI if the blur covers something unique then it should remain that way.