Independent rights desk

A permission is not a footnote.

EroLove AI Rights Brief examines the provider's public media terms before a user creates or shares intimate content. We are unaffiliated with EroLove. Our central criticism is that a private chat interface can distract from a broad, continuing licence over selected generated character images. We state the policy's identity protections and prohibitions alongside that criticism.

Our method

We reviewed the public Terms of Service, Privacy Policy and About page on November 5, 2026. We have not generated an image, uploaded a photo, tested moderation, filed a complaint or observed a public showcase copy. A term can show what the provider permits or forbids; it does not prove what occurs in practice.

What readers can use

The homepage has a three-step consent test and scenario worksheet. Case notes explain ownership of user text, licensing of generated character images, selected public copies, deletion limits, likeness and responsible sharing. They are decision aids, not legal opinions about a specific output or jurisdiction.

What we do not allege

The provider's terms ban content involving minors, nonconsent and identifiable real-person deepfakes. We do not claim those acts occurred, that the rules failed, or that the image licence is unlawful. We criticize the breadth and permanence of the published permission because readers deserve to understand it.