OnlyFans Model Shocked After Finding Her Pictures With AI-Swapped Faces on Reddit
An OnlyFans creator is speaking out after discovering that her photos were stolen by someone who used deepfake tech to give her a completely new face — and posted the deepfaked images all over Reddit.
As 25-year-old, UK-based OnlyFans creator Bunni told Mashable, image theft is a common occurrence in her field. Usually, though, catfishers would steal and share Bunni's image without alterations.
In this case, the grift was sneakier. With the help of deepfake tools, a scammer crafted an entirely new persona named "Sofía," an alleged 19-year-old in Spain who had Bunni's body — but an AI-generated face.
It was "a completely different way of doing it that I've not had happen to me before," Bunni, who posted a video about the theft on Instagram back in February, told Mashable. "It was just, like, really weird."
It's only the latest instance of a baffling trend, with "virtual influencers" pasting fake faces onto the bodies of real models and sex workers to sell bogus subscriptions and swindle netizens.
Using the fake Sofía persona, the scammer flooded forums across Reddit with fake images and color commentary. Sometimes, the posts were mundane; "Sofía" asked for outfit advice and, per Mashable, even shared photos of pets. But Sofía also posted images to r/PunkGirls, a pornographic subreddit.
Sofía never shared a link to another OnlyFans page, though Bunni suspects that the scammer might have been looking to chat with targets via direct messages, where they might have been passing around an OnlyFans link or requesting cash. And though Bunni was able to get the imposter kicked off of Reddit after reaching out directly to moderators, her story emphasizes how easy it is for catfishers to combine AI with stolen content to easily make and distribute convincing fakes.
"I can't imagine I'm the first, and I'm definitely not the last, because this whole AI thing is kind of blowing out of proportion," Bunni told Mashable. "So I can't imagine it's going to slow down."
As Mashable notes, Bunni was somewhat of a perfect target: she has fans, but she's not famous enough to trigger immediate or widespread recognition. And for a creator like Bunni, pursuing legal action might not be a feasible or even worthwhile option. It's expensive, and right now, the law itself is still catching up.
"I don't feel like it's really worth it," Bunni told Mashable. "The amount you pay for legal action is just ridiculous, and you probably wouldn't really get anywhere anyway, to be honest."
Reddit, for its part, didn't respond to Mashable's request for comment.
More on deepfakes: Gross AI Apps Create Videos of People Kissing Without Their Consent
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
32 minutes ago
- USA Today
What Swift fan accounts should know about copyright after Barstool's 'Taylor Watch' canceled
What Swift fan accounts should know about copyright after Barstool's 'Taylor Watch' canceled The rumors may be terrible and cruel, but the ones about Barstool Sports' "Taylor Watch" podcast being canceled are true. The podcast with 115,000 fans on TikTok, 78,000 fans on Instagram and 16,000 subscribers on YouTube — geared toward discussing all things Taylor Swift — aired its final episode on June 4. What was supposed to have been a celebratory moment for Swift regaining control of her masters started on a melancholic note as hosts Kelly Keegs and Gia Mariano sang "Ave Maria." The two sat in their brown leather chairs to acknowledge the termination of a show they've cultivated for two-plus years. "'Taylor Watch' is canceled," Keegs said on the 150th episode, "because having a music related podcast or something that can toe the line with lawsuits in general where it comes to music rights, whatever, is just not feasible with Barstool Sports at this time." One underlying issue lies in copyrighted photos, videos and music being used on social media. Several posts potentially opened parent company Barstool Sports to lawsuits, and the podcasters had two options: to cancel "Taylor Watch" or be fired. "It was all just stupid mistakes on my part," Mariano said on the podcast through tears. "It was never intentional. We would never think that we could just get away with something." "Or even jeopardize the company," Keegs jumped in. "We love working here." Long live the Eras Tour with our enchanting book The one- to two-hour episodes crafted a corner in the Swiftie community where fans (and some haters) tuned in to hear the thoughts of Keegs and Mariano. " Gia and I went to Paris Night 2 together, and there were some people coming up to us and saying what they liked about the show," Keegs tells the USA TODAY Network of Swift's May 10, 2024, concert. "Then by the time we were in Miami — that was a totally different experience — I couldn't believe how many people were coming up to us who knew who we were." The two hosts offered unfiltered thoughts on Swift's music, business moves, concerts and news. They would post short snippets to social media. A couple included some paparazzi photos and sped-up music pulled from the internet. "It's what I looked forward to every week," Keegs says. Her favorite part was the voicemail segment when people called in to offer their thoughts. "We got a call from a mom excited about the 'Speak Now (Taylor's Version).' She gave birth to her son when the first version came out and now he's a teen. She made him listen to 'Never Grow Up.' It was a beautiful full circle moment." Copyright's gray area So where do the legal lines lie for copyright? It's a perfect question for David Herlihy, an intellectual property, new media and entertainment lawyer who also teaches at Northeastern University in Boston. Copyright is the subject of entire college courses, so keep in mind the following is heavily abbreviated. Herlihy also provides an asterisk: " None of these things are absolute, but there are basic policy contours of copyright." Let's start with images and videos that fan accounts share on social media. Herlihy says the copyright of photos of Swift taken in a public place are owned by the photographers and can be licensed to news outlets. However, the photographers can't make merch with the photos, "because that's a commercial exploitation of her likeness." What about fan accounts that repost photos and credit them, do they need permission? Some cases can be deemed fair-use, which means using copyrighted material doesn't need permission under "certain circumstances." This balances copyright holders' intellectual property rights with the public's need to access and use information. "You're using the photograph for news reporting, commentary or for conversation, and the law regards news, commentary and conversation as valuable," Herlihy says. "So depending upon the nature of the use, the rights of the copyright owner may actually yield to other socially beneficial purposes." What Taylor Swift's trademark applications say about potential business moves. However, Instagram has a clear policy that users cannot post content that violates someone else's intellectual property rights, including copyright. 'Taylor Watch' is not the first account within the past month to get flagged. In fact a few behemoth Swift fan accounts with six digits in followers were recently sent to Instagram purgatory and deactivated for similar infractions including @ and @tstourtips. Meta, Instagram's parent company, did not comment on the deactivations to the USA TODAY Network. The accounts, which are not officially affiliated with Swift, share news, theories on upcoming announcements and records broken by the superstar. They foster micro-communities of the global fandom. And they celebrate moments like Swift buying back her first six albums from Shamrock Capital. For Keegs and Mariano, "Taylor Watch" was their safe space to gab about the superstar. 'It's not like we aren't Taylor fans still,' Keegs said. She tried to find a bright side explaining, "If we want to be poetic about it, I suppose you can say our watch has ended because [Swift's] gotten all of her stuff back." Don't miss any Taylor Swift news; sign up for the free, weekly newsletter This Swift Beat. Follow Bryan West, the USA TODAY Network's Taylor Swift reporter, on Instagram, TikTok and X as @BryanWestTV.
New York Times
39 minutes ago
- New York Times
I Scream, You Scream. They Don't Scream for Ice Cream.
The Museum of Ice Cream is a sugarcoated daydream — or nightmare, depending on your tastes. The location in SoHo opened in 2019, spawning out of a temporary pop-up three years earlier that reportedly had a 200,000-person wait-list. It's less of a museum than it is a made-for-Instagram selfie emporium. You won't find much on display to spark any philosophical thoughts — what is there to say about the ephemeral nature of ice cream, or how about its role as a symbol of pure hedonism? You will instead find a banana jungle, a spiral slide, unlimited scoops of Fruiti Cereal Swirl and Ess-a-Bagel ice cream sandwiches. 'Ready To Rediscover Your Inner Child?' the museum prominently asks on its website. But in the depths of the museum's sprinkle pool, a feud has been brewing. The inner child belongs to adults, and the Museum of Ice Cream wants to cater to them. Though 'pinktinis' and sprinkle shots are on the menu, the party ends early: the latest available tickets on weekends are for 8 p.m. For years, the museum has wanted to extend its hours and liquor sales. Last week, the New York State Liquor Authority denied the museum's latest proposal, which would have allowed the museum to serve alcohol until 10:30 p.m. daily and midnight during private events. The application also sought to extend liquor consumption to all three stories of its building; alcohol use is currently limited to the main floor. 'We are requesting nothing beyond what other similar SoHo establishments already have — whether it's ice cream shops with licenses to serve alcohol or museums that host occasional private events. We're simply aligning with longstanding practices in the neighborhood and industry,' said Kate Ambas, a representative for the museum, in an emailed statement. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Chicago Tribune
40 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Today in Chicago History: Bulls win 1st championship — and Michael Jordan named MVP of NBA Finals
Here's a look back at what happened in the Chicago area on June 12, according to the Tribune's archives. Is an important event missing from this date? Email us. Weather records (from the National Weather Service, Chicago) 1966: In Humboldt Park, white Chicago police Officer Thomas Munyon shot Arcelis Cruz, a young Puerto Rican man, in the leg. The incident ignited two days of rioting along Division Street that sprang from deep frustrations over bad police relations, poor schools and uncaring landlords. On the first day of unrest, the Tribune reported, three squad cars were burned, 35 people were arrested and 19 people were injured. Stores along Division Street were looted and set on fire. A firebomb was thrown into Schley Elementary School. Firefighters had a hose wrested from their hands as they tried to extinguish the flames of a burning police car. A Tribune photographer was robbed of his camera, beaten and kicked, until neighborhood residents rescued him. The nearby St. Mary's Hospital treated both civilians and police officers. The violence subsided after a heavy rainfall and hundreds of police officers were placed on patrol in the area. 1991: The Chicago Bulls won the first NBA championship in the team's 25-year history with a 108-101 victory in Game 5 of the NBA Finals over the Los Angeles Lakers. MVP Michael Jordan scored 30 points, Scottie Pippen had 32 and John Paxson added 20. The Bulls won three straight on the road at the Forum. Chicago Bulls beat Los Angeles Lakers for NBA title in 1991'(The championship) means so much,' said Jordan, in tears after the game, talking to a national television audience. 'Not just for me but for this team and this city. It was a seven-year struggle. It's the most proud day I've ever had.' 2019: Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker signed into law sweeping abortion rights legislation that established the procedure as a 'fundamental right' for women in Illinois. Subscribe to the free Vintage Chicago Tribune newsletter, join our Chicagoland history Facebook group, stay current with Today in Chicago History and follow us on Instagram for more from Chicago's past.
