WIRED finds AI accounts copying eight comedians to promote adult subscriptions

AI-generated performers are turning comedians’ routines into marketing for paid adult content—and complaints have not driven the accounts off Instagram. In an October 16 investigation, WIRED identified eight comedians whose videos had been replicated. The accounts it flagged remained online, exposing a gap between protecting someone’s identity and protecting the work they perform.

The same joke, a different performer

Stand-up comic Julia Jasunas learned about one copy through a message from another comedian. The clip featured Aylen Skye, a purported comic delivering Jasunas’ joke about renting a room to an attractive man. Jasunas told WIRED that the performance reproduced her material verbatim, including the “ums” and “ahs.”

Skye had 250,000 Instagram followers. The website promoted in the video redirected to adult content on Fanvue, a subscription service that markets itself to AI creators. For Jasunas, the objection went beyond another performer taking credit: her work was being used to promote sexualized content for somebody else’s profit.

Another account, Tiffany Sloane, linked to OnlyFans through Instagram Highlights. On October 3, comedian George Brett Olson posted a side-by-side comparison of his routine and Sloane’s version. Both performers stood before identical backdrops in similar salmon-colored shirts and khaki shorts. The joke concerned Republicans’ attitudes toward AI and immigration; the copied version changed the punch line.

Olson’s followers told him they reported the video and received responses saying it broke no community guidelines. The Sloane account later commented “sorry, won’t happen again” on his post. It deleted the copied video and many other Reels. The account did not immediately respond to WIRED’s request for comment.

Copying a routine is not impersonating its author

Jasunas tried reporting Skye’s video for impersonation. She says Meta rejected the report because Skye was not pretending to be her, only presenting her joke as its own. That distinction left her complaint outside the protection she had sought, despite the close reproduction of her performance.

AI disclosure is a separate issue. Instagram permits appropriately labeled AI content, WIRED reported, but labeling among these accounts was inconsistent. Most of Skye’s posts were flagged as AI-generated, while the account itself was not. A label can identify a synthetic performer without identifying whose material that performer is delivering.

After Olson tagged Instagram head Adam Mosseri, Mosseri said banning AI content was not practical. He also said Instagram was invested in directing more traffic to original creators and acknowledged that wholesale copying required a response.

if an AI creator is ripping off content wholesale, it would be good for us to work out what we can do about that.

Adam Mosseri, Instagram head, as quoted by WIRED

Asked by WIRED for further comment, Meta spokesperson Francis Brennan said the company’s policies were clear and Mosseri’s comment spoke for itself. He offered no further explanation of how Meta would handle these complaints.

A marketing tactic with somebody else’s material

The practice has also attracted praise. On October 4, Andreessen Horowitz partner Justine Moore called Sloane’s presence “a genius OnlyFans marketing hack,” citing millions of views. Gizmodo’s October 6 coverage reported that, after someone replied with a side-by-side comparison, Moore said she had “figured at least some of these were video-to-video” AI creations.

The destination platforms have their own restrictions. According to Gizmodo, OnlyFans requires AI content to belong to a verified creator, clearly feature that creator and be identifiable as AI. Those rules concern content on OnlyFans; an Instagram persona linking there does not, by itself, establish what subscribers receive.

Going to court may offer little practical relief for an individual comic. Olson told WIRED that an intellectual-property lawyer he consulted advised that threatening a lawsuit was probably more trouble than it was worth unless Sloane was making millions on OnlyFans. That was his account of legal advice, not evidence of the account’s earnings.