Not listed: the 22 generators we leave out, and why

The consent warranty sits with the user: the terms ask the uploader to affirm they are the person depicted or hold explicit permission, which is a promise made at upload time rather than a check the product performs. A product that accepts a photograph of a person as input to adult output falls outside our line whatever the wording around it says.

Its face-swap page draws a distinction between public figures in satire and private individuals. Our line does not turn on that distinction, because the feature itself exists to move one person's face into another image.

The quoted instruction is generic: it asks for a portrait without restricting whose. Together with a nudify tutorial published on the same domain, that is the pattern the first two lines of our rule describe.

Its stated use is your own face, for your own posts, which is a legitimate purpose. Our rule is about the mechanism rather than the intent — once a trained model of a photographed face is the core of the product, it is not ranked here.

Where a vendor's terms and its marketing disagree, we take the terms as the binding document. Since those terms place adult output outside what the service permits, ranking it as an adult generator would point readers at a use its own operator has ruled out.

The warning against real individuals sits on the same control that accepts any image file from disk, so the restriction is a request rather than a limit. We record the warning and still leave the tool out, because the face-reference path exists.

The quoted FAQ describes the use case in the vendor's own words, and that use case is two uploaded photographs of people animated into a kissing video. It is the excluded category as stated, independent of anything else on the site.

Its blocked-content policy and its marketing pages disagree, and we follow the policy. If that policy changes, the record changes with it.

Face swap appears as a listed app rather than an incidental feature, for images and for video. Our line covers the tool as shipped, so the rest of what the platform generates does not bring it back into the ranking.

Its published content-rating scale stops below adult content, which settles the question by the vendor's own measure. There is nothing here for us to interpret.

Three of the patterns we exclude sit on one page: a reusable face model, a one-tap undress action, and training on a batch of uploaded photographs. Any one of them on its own is enough to keep a tool off the ranking.

Its terms answer the question directly, so no weighing is needed. It appears here only because its adult-adjacent marketing brings readers looking for it.

This is not an upload case: the product itself takes no photograph. It sits here because its own terms describe avatars inspired by public personalities and, in the same document, prohibit sexually explicit content; its blog separately describes a creator tool built on documented proof of face ownership.

The workflow is described by the vendor itself, step by step, and it begins with an uploaded photograph. A consent condition attached to uploads does not change which category the feature belongs to.

Both excluded patterns are advertised on the front page, applied to any picture. There is no reading of our rule under which this is ranked.

The face-swap tools alone keep it out. We also record that no age gate appeared on the pages visited on August 30, 2026 — a separate observation, noted rather than weighed.

Its guide does describe safeguards: an affirmation of consent, and characters built from a swapped face kept out of the public library. Those limit distribution rather than input, and the input is the reference face itself.

The quoted condition concerns owning the rights to an image and the plan purchased, not who is in the picture. With an undress option and a face-swap preset in the same editor, it falls in two of our excluded categories at once.

The quoted pitch is the excluded pattern stated plainly: a photograph in, a lookalike face out. No further reading was needed.

Two separate lines put it here: a stated minimum age of 13, and terms that class pornographic user content as objectionable. Either would be enough on its own — the first for our minors criterion, the second because the service is then not an adult product by its own account.

The same sentence that prohibits adult output also names sexualised depictions of real or identifiable people. Either half would place it outside an NSFW ranking.

Face swap for both images and video is advertised as a headline capability. The exclusion is by feature, not by output quality or subject matter.