Baloney. From Cobb: "a person is guilty of a felony if he or she “[p]ublishes, exhibits or otherwise makes available any visual representation of a child engaging in sexual activity.” A dressed child, unless they’re doing something you’re not telling me, is not a "visual representation of a child engaging in sexual activity.
Maybe I’m missing your point, but child pornography kinda requires that a child be involved, so the age of the “pastee” is pretty important.
Which is one of the major problems with the computer generated child pornography. It’s gotten, and will continue to get, harder and harder to differentiate between a unknown child victim and a created victim.
I.M. Scumbucket, photographer and photoshopper, takes a kid’s picture and pastes the head onto the body of a naked adult. According to Frosted Glass, this would be “using a child’s face in a manner that they are not developed enough to approve of.”
I. M. Scumbucket then takes MY picture and pastes the head onto the naked body of another adult. I, unlike the child, am indeed capable of approving or disapproving of the usage of my image. However, even if I disapprove of it, there’s not a damn thing I can do about it- because (unless I’m mistaken), it’s not illegal for Mr. Scumbucket to do so with my image.
My point is that I don’t think the age of the, uh, “victim” (for want of a better word) is important, at least as far as Frosted Glass’ argument goes. So what if the kid can’t can’t approve of the use of his face in that manner? It’s a non-issue. Why does the kid’s age matter? If he was an adult, he could protest 'til the cows come home and it wouldn’t do a lick of good- but since he’s a minor, it’s illegal? Huh?
For example, I could (legally) take a picture of the cute girl who works at the sandwich shop down the corner, and paste her head onto Jenna Jamesons’ nude body. It’d be perfectly legal, if more than a little skeevy. But if she happens to be a minor (entirely possible, as I haven’t asked her), it’s illegal.
I guess I’m a little confused as to how photoshoppery can result in child pornography. Is it skeevy and wrong? Of course. But should it be illegal? It’s gettin’ mighty close to thought crime, in my book.
As an aside… I’m an artist. Specifically, a 3D artist. I’m pretty darned good. I could, without too much effort, create what would be classified as “child porn”- but in which no actual humans were involved. That kinda frightens me, ya know?
I agree that it should be illegal, but shoudln’t it be a crime completely different (with different sentences, etc…) from what is usually understood by “child pornography”?
I don’t mean to speak for Frosted Glass, but child pornography isn’t illegal only because the child didn’t consent.
Again, I must be missing something. Adult pornography… legal. Child pornography… illegal. How is age not relevant? Maybe you’re meaning to focus only on the possible civil suits for invasion of privacy, misappropriation of identity, or false light. These civil suits can be had by both the child and the adult in your examples. But it’s the criminal child pornography charges that are based on the age of the child.
Again, it’s the difference between adult pornography and child pornography that makes it illegal to make or distribute the images. Her age may not matter if she sues you civilly, but the criminal distinction between the two is fairly obvious.
In New Hampshire, if the photoshopping results in a “visual representation of a child engaging in sexual activity,” and it is not a completely virtual image, it can be prosecuted as child pornography. It has absolutely nothing to do with being a “thought crime”, and everything to do with trying to stop the sexual exploitation of children.
I too am afraid that people can and do, create completely realistic virtual child pornography, but the Supreme Court has found that it is protected speech.
Since you must be aknowledgeable… Could you give a link to some virtual pictures depicting humans (not necessarily yours) that you deem to be of particularily high quality, so that I could judge how close they come to an actual picture?
(I’ve seen virtual art, of course. And even virtual porn. But nothing that could be in any way mistaken for an actual picture. That’s why I’d want to see what “top notch” art looks like. Also, I’m refering to something that could be done by an independant artist or a small team. Not something done at very high cost in some studio working for Hollywood)
I can see a good reason for that : avoiding that owning child pornography would become mostly impossible to prosecute when the child depicted can’t be identified (American law, as far as I can tell from reading this board, and french law for sure both allow prosecution when the person depicted appears to be a minor, even when it can’t be proved, for this very reason).
However, I’m wondering if you’re thinking there might be another reason to fear “completly realistic virtual child porn” ?
I don’t see how the child is being exploited in this case, assuming the guy was keeping these photos for his own personal use. How is that different from him going home and beating off while just imagining these fifteen year olds naked? Freedom of speech and freedom of expression should only be abrogated when there’s a clear danger to the life or well being of others. Child porn is illegal not because its wrong to fantasize about children, but because it’s damaging to the children involved in its creation. If there are no children involved, it should not be illegal. In this case, although there were real children involved, their involvment is at such a remove from the creation of the sexually explicit content that it seems difficult to argue that they’ve suffered any tangible damage as a result. They weren’t naked when the photos were taken, and had this guy not been caught, they’d never have known the edited photos exsist. While the ruling may have been in line with the law, I think this case is evidence of exactly why the law is poorly conceived.
Also, while these photos may have been in violation of the guy’s contract with the camp, that would still be a civil matter, not a criminal matter. I’d have no beef with this guy getting fired over these photos, but I do not think he should be serving jail time.
From the recent XBox 360 game Fight Night. It’s not quite there yet, but you can see that it’s getting pretty darn close. The PlayStation 3 will likely be capable of even more realistic graphics. I imagine that by the time the PS4 rolls around (in a little under ten years or so) truly photo-realistic computer graphics will probably be pretty common.
I’m very leery of this line of argument. It’s unfortunate that new technology will make it increasingly difficult to prosecute this sort of crime, but one of the drawbacks of living in a free society is that it’s often much harder for the police to do their job. It’d be a lot easier to solve crimes if we let the cops beat the living shit out of suspects, too, but we still don’t allow it.
For the record, they’re WAY better than I am, or ever hope to be.
Let’s say that picture depicted her nude (it doesn’t). And let’s say that someone claimed it was child pornography, because she looks kinda young. If you don’t have the actual .max file that generated the image, could you prove it wasn’t (short of hiring some expert to side with you)?
Very briefly, I disagree with the Supreme Court’s thoughts that virtual child pornography isn’t related to the sexual abuse of children. I also think that true child pornography is, by and large, obscene, and has little to no redeeming value as speech.
In addition to virtual artists there are a few Photoshop artists, mostly European, who specialize in making fake nude and semi-nude pictures of celebrities (typically attractive actresses) as a serious hobby. They spend many, many hours crafting composite images that are so perfect and realistic that even experienced Photoshop mavens can’t tell if the image is synthetic or real.
You are making it harder that it is, remember that the defense needs only a reasonable doubt, if the guy that has the pictures also has access to software and computers that do that, he would be confident in saying there is no real counterpart to the beings in the pictures, it will be then the burden on the prosecution to find the real persons affected. Good luck on that. (I am assuming here the guy is innocent BTW)
If you insist that the possible perpetrator does not have the originals anymore, he just needs to show to the court how he did it by recreating the steps, like Han van Meegeren did to avoid jail for treason, he had to show how he created the fake Vermeers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_van_Meegeren
OK, this has been discussed in the Board several times in the last couple of years. In 2003 the Congress sought to adjust the law according to the 2002 decision, and it has yet to be tested in a high court challenge. What was done was distinguish from the offense for **real CP ** a new, separate, different offence for “virtual” CP.
Allow me to quote myself extensively fromthis post inthis thread last January: I have marked any updated-to-the-last-news-I-hear or expanded-for-clarity’s-sake text [like so] and any added emphasis like so.
BTW, the law in most of the US is against ANY use of the likeness of any real minor in the context of a sexually explicit display, whether or not the minor is engaging in the activity – it is indeed about exploitation. Lightnin’, IANAL but AFAIK, as an adult you** DO**, too, have recourse: if you’re not a public figure you HAVE a right to object to the use of your likeness w/o your approval. It’s a civil rather than criminal procedure usually, but you’re not helpless.)
The age of the person involved does indeed make a huge difference. At the day camp I work at during summer, the management makes a point of stressing to us that we are not allowed to take any of the campers pictures without written permission from the parents. Additionally, we are not allowed to permit anyone to photograph the campers. A town council member attempted to photograph the campers last summer and we had to stop her and she voluntarily confiscated her camera. These are not small children either; they are all between 12 and 15 years old.
IMHO it is damn close to thought crime, but not close enough for me to think that it should be a legal practice. An actual child is being taken advantage of. While they may not have been directly exposed to sexual acts, they are still being taken advantage of. My discomfort mainly stems from the fact that the defendant had personal contact with the children. He took advantage of the power that his position granted him.
That is awesome. I love 3D modeling but I can really only do buildings and rooms. I suck at anything organic, however, I really only use 3dsmax and FormZ. I really need to learn Maya. What programs do you use? cough Umm, so…about that virtual porn, realistic but not an actual person? Peoples’ views on child pornography tend to be based on their feelings and beliefs about Pedophilia. Is it a psychosexual disorder or something else entirely?
There is a significant difference between imagining a child’s face on a nude adult body and creating the image in Photoshop using pictures that you have taken personally. These scenarios are distinguished by the degree to which they contribute to a psychological disorder.
Joe imagines Little Susie’s face on his girlfriend’s nude body. This is perverse but ultimately it is in his head. At this point, your feelings about Joe will depend largely on how likely you believe it is for him to attempt to make his fantasies a reality. Here is where we have problem. I could argue all day about the dangers of pedophilic fantasies and you could spend all day explaining how the prosecution of these non-criminal individuals is an infringement upon their rights. Personally, I do believe that a preoccupation with sexual fantasies involving children is not healthy. I challenge anyone to find a viable statistic of people who limit their pedophilia to sexual fantasy. It is easy to see the difficulties in producing such a statistic. To admit to sexual fantasies involving children, is to admit to pedophilia. Forgive me if I do not believe that people would be willing to share these fantasies so freely with the world.
Joe is tired of only being able to imagine and now he wants something that is more tangible. After having developed an interest in Susie, Joe now begins to interact with her. Hanging around while she skips rope in the street and offering to baby-sit. He is not touching her right now, nor is he exposing himself to her, but he is beginning to cultivate a relationship. One day he decides to take her picture. Nothing sexual but he takes it so that he can later create a picture of his former fantasy. This is where he crosses the line. By using an image gathered from personal interaction with the child, he has made a fabrication into something perceptible.
Treatment notwithstanding, prevention of pedophilia is largely conditional on avoiding situations that may encourage action.
Again, why does that matter? It’s perceptible to him, but not to anyone else. As long as it stays in his possession, it may as well be in his head. From the child’s POV, he has simply taken an innocent photo of her.
I know someone who was arrested for this kind of thought crime, except it was someone else’s thought. His wife was hostessing some “Undercoverwear Parties” and he distributed some catalogues to people’s porches. A link to a similiar catalogue, which I have not looked through completely, and which may or may not be work-safe, is here .
Someone who looked at the catalogue decided that a model appeared to be younger than eighteen, and filed a complaint. Although there was proof that all models were indeed of age, the appearance of being a minor was enough to merit his arrest on a charge of distributing child pornography.
This was in Georgia in the late 1990’s. I don’t know if he was convicted, I was doing some contract work down there and moved on, but you can imagine the effect a child pornography charge on someone’s life, especially in a small town.
