Toribash
Re: I'm now paying to see how far artistic freedom can go:
Originally Posted by JackiBernini
Personally although I agree the woman who replied to your email is wrong, its sort of still a matter of opinion whether something is pornography or not. So If you did do a picture of a ficticious model, you could get done if the opinion of the jury is that what you have done is pornography. There is no law that completely explains what is acceptable and whats not, for this situation, so it would just come down to opinion, which would be law - bias. I dont really know actually, im just kind of typing what im thinking. Lol. Well yeah I dunno. Just keep asking I suppose.

I just don't like being told I have freedom, and that I can create something that doesn't exist, that I could fabricate something that has no tangible form, nor reality, and have it be a crime against me. That feels... constricting, confining to me, so much so that I then WANT to do it, just so I can prove that I can.

My only arguement is this:
In the United States, child pornography is illegal. This I know, this I accept, and this, I have no problem with, and support. However it was ruled in court that if one were to draw (read: hentai, manga, doujinshi, etc.. so long as it is ficticious, and is not designed to be interpretative of actual children) underaged children in sexually explicit scenarios, it is legal, since no child was harmed/abused/taken advantage of in the process of creation.

However the same does not apply to 3d image generation, it makes me feel as if my artwork cannot be classified as artwork, and that I am looked down on for my choice of medium. That so long as it's a two dimensional 'pencil and paper' thing, there are no restrictions, but once I try to go beyond that, once I try to seek as high of a degree of realism as I can attain, I'm bound by higher rules, and stricter guidelines, because my artistic medium of choice is bastardized without explination.

That is where my problem is, and is my only problem. This is what I want an answer to, why is it, that my artistic outlet is bound more so, than another's? That is what grinds my gears, and makes me feel restriction, and anger.
Re: I'm now paying to see how far artistic freedom can go:
And at that rate, what if I make a 3d model of a girl that would be full sized, and then I randomly 'claimed' for her to be 16, even though a model can't have an age, does that make it automatically child pornography?

Wait.... wait.. is that the catch? is that the deciding factor? Image production can't judge age based off of a fictitious model can it? So what then if I made an obviously exceedingly young model that had the physical charactaristics of some pre-pubescant entity, and then 'claimed' her to be 18, and have a rare disease that caused her body to not age appropriately? I would still be within my legal rights, correct? as I would be depicting someone who would be potentially ... uh... 37, lets say, and has a disease that inhibited the production of growth hormones?

Then the model would be an exact representation of a legally appropriate model, but would have the physical characteristics of someone who wouldn't be...?

Bah, I'm starting to take this too far, methinks..
Re: I'm now paying to see how far artistic freedom can go:
You need to understand one thing. One person can't change the law. You're bound by it.

The majority (most important word about the law) voted that it should be considered illegal. It's democracy. Sometimes it works, sometimes...it doesn't. It's a proven fact. But, let's face it, if there were no democracy, you wouldn't have the CHANCE to try and make that 3D model. So basically ignore it. Do your 3D art, but don't publish it. It isn't like every policeman in America will come to arrest you because you created a 3D model.
Re: I'm now paying to see how far artistic freedom can go:
Originally Posted by SSJokker
You need to understand one thing. One person can't change the law. You're bound by it.

The majority (most important word about the law) voted that it should be considered illegal. It's democracy. Sometimes it works, sometimes...it doesn't. It's a proven fact. But, let's face it, if there were no democracy, you wouldn't have the CHANCE to try and make that 3D model. So basically ignore it. Do your 3D art, but don't publish it. It isn't like every policeman in America will come to arrest you because you created a 3D model.

But you've just restated my problem in it's simplest form. I'm not out to break the law, I'm out to try to figure out what my legal obligations are. It seems like the only way I can do that is if I actually make the production, market it, wait for the inevitable lawsuit to be filed, and then 'see what happens' which is a horrible idea, and that's why I keep asking various sources.

Not to try to change the law, but to try to understand if it applies to me. Because I read up on the reasoning behind the laws, and what the laws were referring to 1.) Did not outlaw 'art', and 2.) Originally listed 'computer generated graphic' in light of photoshop, and the ability to superimpose famous children actor's faces on adult bodies. Vector programs came after the fact, or at least became powerful after the fact, and by default vector programs fall into the listing of 'computer generated graphic', even though the term was predefined before the programs came into being.

... aaany way. I'm just trying to find my legal obligation, that's how this whole mess started.