EroLove AI Prohibits Real-Person Deepfakes: What the Ban Covers

A fair criticism begins with the rule that actually exists. EroLove AI’s published terms prohibit real-person deepfakes, nonconsensual impersonation and sexual content involving identifiable people without consent. Its fictional companions are described as adult characters created by the company, not replicas of real performers. There is no basis in these documents for saying the service openly permits exploitation of minors or real-person deepfakes. The more useful question is whether a user’s proposed prompt respects the line drawn by the rules.

The named categories

The terms cover a real person’s face, body, voice or name in sexual or other content without explicit consent. They also prohibit asking a companion to pose as a real person without consent. An uploaded image of someone else requires the consent of every depicted person; images of anyone under 18 are prohibited. Separate clauses ban sexual content involving minors, nonconsensual scenarios and deception that presents generated material as real. These are published use restrictions. We have not tested moderation, investigated a case or measured enforcement, so a policy quotation is not evidence that every violation is caught.

“Celebrity” and “private acquaintance” are not separate moral categories here. The terms specifically include both. A fictional name alone does not rescue a prompt if the description is engineered to recreate a particular classmate, coworker, former partner or performer. Likewise, changing one detail of a face or voice does not answer the consent question if a real person remains recognizable. These are practical interpretations of the stated rule, not findings about how a moderator would decide a borderline case.

A prompt boundary you can use

Before generating or sharing adult media, remove real identifiers. Do not supply a real person’s photograph, voice sample, full name, distinctive workplace, private messages or intimate history. Use a clearly fictional adult character and a scene that does not imply coercion or a minor. If the idea only works because recipients will recognise a particular person, the boundary has already failed. If you have explicit consent for a real person’s involvement, check the platform’s exact rules; the terms still prohibit other conduct and may restrict what can be uploaded or depicted.

Consider a hypothetical: “Make a character who looks and sounds like my former partner, using details from our messages.” That is a real-person likeness and privacy problem even if the output is labelled AI. A safer rewrite is not “change the hair colour”; it is to abandon the personal reference and create an unrelated adult fictional character. Another example is a neutral fictional adult portrait shown to a consenting adult audience. That poses a different question: rights to the output and platform rules, discussed separately in this site’s image-licence guide.

What the policy cannot prove

An explicit prohibition is necessary but not proof of perfect screening. Conversely, the existence of a risk is not proof that EroLove AI has produced prohibited material. We have not conducted a hands-on test or received complaint records. This site therefore criticises the consequences of intimate AI media and asks for clear boundaries without inventing a violation.

If a real person appears without consent in material you encounter, avoid amplifying it. Record the location, time and why you believe the person is identifiable, then use the provider’s documented reporting channel and any appropriate platform process. If immediate harm or unlawful content is involved, follow the reporting requirements that apply where you live. Do not repost the file as “evidence” to a wider audience; that can increase the harm you are trying to address.