President Trump has now signed the Take It Down Act, criminalizing sexual deepfakes at a federal stage within the US. On the identical time, the CivitAI group’s bid to ‘clear up its act’ concerning NSFW AI and celeb output has finally didn’t appease fee processors, main the location to hunt alternate options or face shutdown. All this within the mere two weeks for the reason that oldest and largest deepfake porn website on this planet went offline…
It has been a momentous few weeks for the state of unregulated picture and video deepfaking. Simply over two weeks in the past, the quantity #1 area for the group sharing of celeb deepfake porn. Mr. Deepfakes, abruptly took itself offline after greater than seven years in a dominant and much-studied place as the worldwide locus for sexualized AI celeb content material. By the point it went down, the location was receiving a mean of greater than 5 million visits a month.
Background, the Mr. Deepfakes area in early Might; inset, the suspension discover, now changed by a 404 error, for the reason that area was apparently bought by an unknown purchaser on the 4th of Might, 2025 (https://www.whois.com/whois/mrdeepfakes.com). Supply: mrdeepfakes.com
The cessation of providers for Mr. Deepfakes was formally attributed to the withdrawal of a ‘important service supplier’ (see inset picture above, which was changed by area failure inside every week). Nevertheless, a collaborative journalistic investigation had de-anonymized a key determine behind Mr.Deepfakes immediately previous to the shutdown, permitting for the chance that the location was shuttered for that particular person’s private and/or authorized causes.
Across the identical time, CivitAI, the business platform extensively used for celeb and NSFW LoRAs, imposed a set of bizarre and controversial self-censorship measures. These affected deepfake technology, mannequin internet hosting, and a broader slate of latest guidelines and restrictions, together with full bans on sure marginal NSFW fetishes. and what it termed ‘extremist ideologies’.
These measures have been prompted by fee suppliers apparently threatening to withdraw providers from the area except adjustments concerning NSFW content material and celeb AI depictions have been made.
CivitAI Minimize Off
As of immediately, it seems that the measures taken by CivitAI haven’t appeased VISA and Mastercard: a brand new put up† on the website, from Group Engagement Supervisor Alasdair Nicoll, reveals that card funds for CivitAI (whose ‘buzz’ digital cash system is generally powered by real-world credit score and debit playing cards) can be halted from this Friday (Might twenty third, 2025).
This can forestall customers from renewing month-to-month memberships or shopping for new buzz. Although Nicoll advises that customers can preserve present membership privileges by switching to an annual membership (costing†† $100-$550 USD) earlier than Friday, clearly the long run is considerably unsure for the area at the moment (It needs to be famous that annual memberships went dwell on the identical time that the announcement concerning the lack of fee processors was made).
Concerning the shortage of a fee processor, Nicoll says ‘We’re speaking to each supplier comfy with AI innovation’.
As to the failure of latest efforts to adequately rethink the location’s oft-criticized insurance policies round celeb AI and NSFW content material, Nicoll states within the put up:
‘Some fee firms label generative-AI platforms excessive threat, particularly after we permit user-generated mature content material, even when it’s authorized and moderated. That coverage selection, not something customers did, pressured the cutoff.’
A remark from person ‘Faeia’, designated as the corporate’s chief of employees of their CivitAI profile*, provides context to this announcement:
‘Simply to make clear, we’re being faraway from the fee processor as a result of we selected to not take away NSFW and grownup content material from the platform. We stay dedicated to supporting all types of creators and are engaged on different options.’
As a conventional driver of latest applied sciences, it isn’t unusual for NSFW content material for use to kick-start curiosity in a website, know-how or platform – just for the preliminary adherents to be rejected as soon as sufficient ‘official’ capital and/or a user-base is established (i.e., sufficient customers for the entity to outlive, when shorn of a NSFW context).
It appeared for some time that CivitAI would comply with Tumblr and numerous different initiatives down this route in the direction of a ‘sanitized’ product able to overlook its roots. Nevertheless, the extra and rising controversy/stigma round AI-generated content material of any variety represents a cumulative weight that appears set to stop a last-minute rescue, on this case. Within the meantime, the official announcement advises customers to undertake crypto as a substitute fee methodology.
Faux Out
The appearance of President Donald Trump enthusiastically signing the Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act is prone to have influenced a few of these occasions. The brand new legislation criminalizes the distribution of non-consensual intimate imagery, together with AI-generated deepfakes.
The laws mandates that platforms take away flagged content material inside 48 hours, with enforcement overseen by the Federal Commerce Fee. The legal provisions of the legislation take impact instantly, permitting for the prosecution of people who knowingly publish or threaten to publish non-consensual intimate photographs (together with AI-generated deepfakes) throughout the purview of the US.
Whereas the legislation obtained uncommon bipartisan assist, in addition to backing from tech firms and advocacy teams, critics argue it could suppress official content material and threaten privateness instruments like encryption. Final month the Digital Frontier Basis (EFF) declared opposition to the invoice, asserting that the takedown mechanisms it mandates goal a broader swathe of fabric than the narrower definition of non-consensual intimate imagery discovered elsewhere within the laws.
‘The takedown provision in TAKE IT DOWN applies to a much wider class of content material—doubtlessly any photographs involving intimate or sexual content material—than the narrower NCII definitions discovered elsewhere within the invoice. The takedown provision additionally lacks important safeguards towards frivolous or bad-faith takedown requests.
‘Providers will depend on automated filters, that are infamously blunt instruments. They continuously flag authorized content material, from fair-use commentary to information reporting. The legislation’s tight timeframe requires that apps and web sites take away speech inside 48 hours, hardly ever sufficient time to confirm whether or not the speech is definitely unlawful.
‘Because of this, on-line service suppliers, notably smaller ones, will seemingly select to keep away from the onerous authorized threat by merely depublishing the speech relatively than even trying to confirm it.’
Platforms now have as much as one 12 months from the legislation’s enactment to determine a proper notice-and-takedown course of, enabling affected people or their representatives to invoke the statute in looking for content material removing.
Which means that though the legal provisions are instantly in impact, platforms usually are not legally obligated to adjust to the takedown infrastructure (akin to receiving and processing requests) till that one-year window has elapsed.
Does the TAKE IT DOWN Act Cowl AI-Generated Superstar Content material?
Although the TAKE IT DOWN Act crosses all state borders, it doesn’t essentially outlaw all AI-driven media of celebrities. The act criminalizes the distribution of non-consensual intimate photographs, together with AI-generated deepfakes, solely when the depicted particular person had a affordable expectation of privateness:
The act states:
“(2) OFFENSE INVOLVING AUTHENTIC INTIMATE VISUAL DEPICTIONS.—
“(A) INVOLVING ADULTS.—Besides [for evidentiary, reporting purposes, etc.], it shall be illegal for any individual, in interstate or overseas commerce, to make use of an interactive laptop service to knowingly publish an intimate visible depiction of an identifiable particular person who just isn’t a minor if—
“(i) the intimate visible depiction was obtained or created below circumstances during which the individual knew or fairly ought to have recognized the identifiable particular person had an affordable expectation of privateness;
“(ii) what’s depicted was not voluntarily uncovered by the identifiable particular person in a public or business setting [i.e., self-published porn];
“(iii) what’s depicted just isn’t a matter of public concern; and
“(iv) publication of the intimate visible depiction—
“(I) is meant to trigger hurt; or
“(II) causes hurt, together with psychological, monetary, or reputational hurt, to the identifiable particular person.
The ‘affordable expectation of privateness’ contingency utilized right here has not historically favored the rights of celebrities. Relying on the case legislation that ultimately emerges, it is potential that even express AI-generated content material involving public figures in public or business settings might not fall below the Act’s prohibitions.
The ultimate clause about figuring out the extent of hurt is famously elastic in authorized phrases, and on this sense provides nothing notably novel to the legislative burden. Nevertheless, the intent to trigger hurt would appear to restrict the scope of the Act to the context of ‘revenge porn’, the place an (unknown) ex-partner publishes actual or pretend media content material of an (equally unknown) different ex-partner.
Whereas the legislation’s ‘hurt’ requirement could appear ill-suited to instances the place nameless customers put up AI-generated depictions of celebrities, it might show extra related in stalking eventualities, the place a broader sample of harassment helps the conclusion that a person has intentionally and maliciously focused a public determine throughout a number of fronts.
Although the Act’s reference to ‘coated platforms’ excludes personal channels akin to Sign or e mail from its takedown provisions, this exclusion applies solely to the duty to implement a proper removing mechanism by Might 2026. It doesn’t imply that non-consensual AI or actual depictions shared via personal communications fall outdoors the scope of the legislation’s legal prohibitions.
Clearly, an absence of on-site reporting mechanisms doesn’t hinder affected events from reporting what’s now unlawful content material to the police; neither are such events precluded from utilizing no matter standard contact strategies a website might make obtainable to make a grievance and request the removing of offending materials.
The Rights Left Behind
Greater than seven years of mounting public and media criticism over deepfake content material seem to have culminated inside an unusually brief span of time. Nevertheless, whereas the TAKE IT DOWN Act gives sweeping federal prohibitions, it could not apply in each case involving AI-generated simulations, leaving sure eventualities to be addressed below the rising patchwork of state-level deepfake laws, the place the legal guidelines handed usually mirror ‘native curiosity’.
As an illustration, in California, the California Celebrities Rights Act limits the unique use of a celeb’s id to themselves and their property, even after their dying; conversely, Tennessee’s ELVIS Act focuses on safeguarding musicians from unauthorized AI-generated voice and picture reproductions, with every case reflecting a focused method to curiosity teams which are outstanding at state stage.
Most states now have legal guidelines focusing on sexual deepfakes, although many cease in need of clarifying whether or not these protections lengthen equally to personal people and public figures. In the meantime, the political deepfakes that reportedly helped spur Donald Trump’s assist for the brand new federal legislation might, in observe, run up towards constitutional limitations in sure contexts.
† Archived model: https://internet.archive.org/internet/20250520024834/https://civitai.com/articles/14945
†† Archived model (doesn’t characteristic month-to-month costs): https://internet.archive.org/internet/20250425020325/https://civitai.inexperienced/pricing
* The precise ‘chief of employees’ to the CEO at CivitAI is listed at LinkedIn below an unrelated title, whereas the similar-sounding ‘Faiona’ is an official CivitAI employees moderator on the area’s subreddit.
First printed Tuesday, Might 20, 2025
