Attached Link: http://news.com.com/2100-1028-994460.html?tag=fd_top

They're resurrecting a law that may affect CG art - especially the art of those who may use Milgirl meses in your renders. While child porn is disgusting and should be eliminated entirely IMO, there is no clear delineation as to what constitutes it, and this law may make a few folks who enjoy rendering faeries or other young-looking humanoids into the same class of person as paedophiles. Here are a few quotes from the proposed law: *"The second amendment, which the House agreed to by a 406-15 vote, represents Congress' second attempt to outlaw "morphed" or virtual child pornography. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court slapped down Congress' first law banning nude images of computer-generated minors and underage teens, saying the 1996 measure violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression. After amending the bill, called the Child Abduction Prevention Act (CAPA), the House then approved it by a vote of 410-14."* But there is more: *"The other amendment, which free speech advocates like the American Civil Liberties Union argue is unconstitutional, would ban the creation or possession of "a digital image, computer image or computer-generated image" that is "indistinguishable" from a real minor. It was drafted by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Tex. "* I haven't read the whole bill yet, but it may be worth looking up. /P

Typical- what is the mimium brest size? how many pubic hairs must she or he have- is one enought? what is the minium height allowed for a character? what age should the character look- is 16 old enought or must they look (all subjective) over 21? what about other countrys laws where the legal age is younger then 18 or have no such law as this- can they post and we can't? who decides............???

what about other countrys laws where the legal age is younger then 18 or have no such law as this- can they post and we can't?<< That's an interesting thought you bring up. It sounds much like a law they are trying to pass in Europe, designating certain thoughts/utterances as hate speech, which would also apply to web sites. From what I understand, if an American had a web site regarding something that the Europeans didn't like and regarded as "hate speech", they could take down his web site AND haul him to Europe for a trial - it wouldn't matter that he was an American from a sovereign nation. This kind of stuff is really scary.

Cyhiraeth, what you report makes no sense for several reasons: 1. there can not be any such thing as an "European law" regarding freedom of expression, because Europe is only a commercial union. There are Union rules and regulations for sure, mostly regarding commercial issues, but no "laws" on such matters whatsoever. This kind of thing would pertain to single countries' Parliaments. 2. The law you mention could never exist anyway, because nobody and no country would ever have the right to censor anything that belongs to another country. 3. I live in Europe, am an informed person, and I never heard of such a stupid thing, surely it wasn't discussed here in Italy. And should anyone suggest it, our Parliament would surely reject it, and even if our Parliament did, the Constitutional Court would, because such a law would violate the Italian Constitution. 4. all countries in the EU highly value the freedom of speech and the expression of the different opinions, so I feel safe enough to say that such a censorship proposal does not really belong to any of the other EU countries either. What you report, really sounds like bad xenophobic propaganda.

Y'know.... I prowl the 'net pretty extensively, and I have =YET= to find any trace of this rampant den of virtual kiddie porn and sexual predators I keep hearing about. Of course this is par for the course in Washington. There's an economic crisis about to land on us (something about a trillion dollar deficit run up in a year's time), maybe before the next election, so what do we hear? "We Gonna Protect The Chiiiiiiiildren!" This from the same assholes who are busily wrecking the education system, healthcare system, and calling the school lunch and scholarship programs 'handouts'. Fortunately, the Senate passed the bill =minus= those cute little amendments....and the Supreme Court -should- smack it down once again, as it is identical to what they tried before.

Well, cynically speaking, there is no real freedom of speech. The amount of freedom one has DOES varies from country to country. But, in actuality, your freedom of speech in the US goes on so far as it doesn't upset someone else, then you're likely to find yourself in court. Even then, without that approach, exercising your freedom of speech is likely to be dealt with by the local population who decide it's their right to react however they see fit. For example, drive an Israeli vehicle with a bumper sticker that says, "Long live Palestine". Or park your car in front of Walmart with a bumper sticker that says, "US out of Iraq!" and see what happens. To change the subject, and add a question, what if you used a web host in France or Germany (where legal ages differ, I belive) and then post your photos of a 17-year-old? Are you at risk because you happen to be a US citizen? Or does the web hoster bear all the responsibility (and since it's legal there, it's OK)? Cyh has a good point, too, since a precedent has been set about that already (Australia, I believe). If anything posted on a website that is accessible by anyone in the world, it looks as if one may have to become a legal expert for every country to make sure they don't offend some poor soul. After all, imagine if a country that required women (and photos, I assume) to be veiled decided to drag someone to their country for showing photos of unveiled women. It seems we are the "victims" of a world that is gravitating toward appeasing the "lowest common denominator". Finally, to Pengui... "or computer-generated image" that is "indistinguishable" from a real minor" Does this mean that placing fairy wings on a completely nude CGI of a female that one may perceive to be 13 years old would be exempt since it's obvioius that real minors don't have wings?

Hi Could someone tell me what the **** is going on with this world. The only problem I really have with the web is Spam and virus propagation/incubation which is 'forced' on people, yes I agree with the idea that this type of thing should be stopped but as for the rest if you don't like it don't look!............ Hang on before people start throwing things I don't agree with paedophilla etc. And yes children should be protected from the more extreme aspects of 'web life' but surely that is up to the parents and teachers to enforce not the state or govenment. perhaps taxpayers money would be better spent tracking down and (insert your favorite punishment here) the people who provide the real-life images. But there again perhaps fear or 'what-if' (a game that rarely works) is the problem. I think what i'm trying to say is perhaps the governments are over reacting to what is being put out in the media of all types, in that if the papers, TV, radio or the net keep pushing down peoples throats more and more stories of a limited number of people then perhaps the problem will seem worse than it is. sorry just my 2 pen'eth Dave BTW I work for a local paper and well some of the headlines just blow small stories out of all proportion!

I suspect it's more of a vote-getting problem. Take Georgia, in the US, for example. With all the things that need to be fixed or addressed, the biggest concern of the state population is whether or not Georgia will be able to have a flag that sports some sort of image used on a flag flown during the US Civil War. The state government panders to this emotional issue and the people lap it up like stupid dogs in front of a dish of canned food. Meanwhile, really important issues get to be disscussed and voted upon in "back rooms". So, people are scared for their children's safety. It's something they can understand 'cause it's near and dear to them. SO, the politions pander to that in anyway that will get them a sound byte. It doesn't even matter if it will stand up to the supreme court...they just report to their voters, "Well, I tried, but the evil Supreme Court ruled against it." And people love it.

"Cyh has a good point, too, since a precedent has been set about that already (Australia, I believe)." Well, I don't know about Australia, but for sure, one thing is freedom of speech, another is child pornography of course. There could never be such a censorship on the freedom of expression (at least, not in the EU), the only case I think there is a censorship on opinions allowed, is when the opinion ceases to be presented as opinion and becomes the so called "apology of crime", and not for common crimes either, but only for the kind of crimes that regards things like "apology of Nazism" for instance. As far as pornography goes, there are surely different sex age limits in the EU, but I don't think those limits apply to pornography. Generally speaking I think that in all EU pornography is forbidden to all people of minor age, and I think minor age should be 18 everywhere in the EU (not 100% sure though). Here for sure all pornography that involves persons below the age of 18 is illegal. By pornography our laws mean representation of body in sexual acts or even just explicitly erotic nude poses. Nude below 18 is generally tolerated only if artistic (but not very popular for sure, nowadays). On the contrary, the sex age is much different, sex is allowed from 13 on, although of course with another minor only, and with a limit on the age gap also (can't remember the details of it). So I don't think that the age limit differences can make a real difference (sorry for the pun). Anyway I think that the only thing that one nation can possibly do to prevent vision of illegal pornography from other nations' sites where it is legal, is to "block" the offending sites at the providers' source, in order to make those sites "forbidden" if seen through the national ISPs. Surely no censorship can be done on the other countries' websites directly.

Orio Saudi has this site and Curious labs and even Poser itself firewalled and blocked. Dosn't stop them at all...

I think it would be difficult to enforce this type of thing anywhere. I pretty much agree with what TheWanderer has said. My main issue is SPAM. I frankly don't care what people do on their personal web site....just stay the hell out of my mail box and off my desktop with your garbage. I also believe parents have to take some responsibility for what their children do. If you're going to have the technology in your home, regulate it yourself. Seeing a nekkid fairy may not be nearly as bad as seeing a bunch of folks killed/wounded in the war on the evening news. I work with politics and politicians so I know what "panderers" they are. Most of what's going on in this corner of the world is a result of an economy that has gone into the dumpster....not the fault of any one party, but probably the fault of both. This started before the current administration was even in office and is simply getting worse....heightened by 911 and all that went with it. A quick and decisive war in Iraq is good for the economy....just look at what happens to the stock market from day to day. When it looks like we're making progress, the market rises.....we run into problems...it falls. It's not about the US controlling Iraqi oil, but rather oil prices stabilizing. That was a bit off topic, but the bottom line is that all of these attempts by the politicians to "restore the moral fabric" are often nothing more than window dressing and attempts to divert attention from the larger issues.

"By pornography our laws mean representation of body in sexual acts or even just explicitly erotic nude poses. Nude below 18 is generally tolerated only if artistic" What's explicitly erotic? Take a look at David Hamilton's work. You can hardly buy it in the US.

Yep I guess it doesn't if Saudi people connects with a foreign ISP. Until a few years ago when dialup was the only connection, that would have been MUCH expensive! But now with Cable and DSL and satellite Internet, I don't know if it makes any difference in price, or if it's possible at all, to connect using a ISP of another country.

Hi Chuck, for explicitly erotic, here we mean the poses that are not simple nudes, but in which the sexual/erotic content is explicit, i.e. there is no doubt that it is the primary focus of the photograph. Should you need an example: a thing like a person holding his-her genitals, or exposing the intimate parts ostentatiously, maybe with additional details such as the tongue on the lips... I mean, that kind of stuff. Where sex is obvious even if there is no sexual act depicted. Here the David Hamilton books are present in most art and photography bookstores and you can buy them without any problem, although they are way out of fashion it's some years now.

I have a photography book with nude young girls in it-- one or two-- it's called The Family of Man, highly respected collection of photography. You mean to tell me that's going to be legal-- it already IS legal and should be-- and Daz's pre-teen girl bathing is not. F#cked up world. By the way, I only wish our renders were indistinguishable from the real thing. Orio, pornography was not defined in the bill- nudity itself was banned. Emily

There was a woman Proff at Wayne State in MI, that got arrested for using her child in ART poses for her book. Like the Kid was taking a bath -etc. This was a terrible Shame.(I think it about ruin her and the arrest was later dropped.)

This is silly. I only read the first post mostly. The fact is I could realy give a ... Good points though, US congress doesn't rule the whole world and to enforce this stuff half the time would be a waiste of my (tax Payer) money.

Let's see, fighting Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East while the Christian fundamentalists have a field day at home. Schoold closing cutting public services and veterans benefits while the rich get an enormous tax cut. Halliburton et al line up to profit from the war. We lose troops because we're in such a rush to get to Baghdad we didn't protect our supply lines. In a rush, of course because someone's chances for reelection might sour. And on and on. Believe me, porn is the least of our worries.

Yes, lmckenzie, just like I was saying. Pander to the heart to get votes. Many US citizens (average citizens) are myopic. What affects them personally is the most important.

According to some, over 70% of the so called kiddie porn sites are run by the FBI .. in "sting" operations.

Lets see what happens. In 1990 Scalia gutted the free exercise clause of the first amendment. In 1991 congress enacted the RFRA (Religious Freedom Reformation Act) in an attempt to restore the free exercise clause. In 1992 the supreme court struck down the RFRA. Think and say what you like. The Supreme Court decides what your freedoms are and are not... and the Sup. Ct. is not an elected body. You didn't vote for them. It all started with Marburry v. Maddison. Anyway, if the Sup Ct is in keeping with its recent history, they may very likely strike down this thing if it becomes law, but pity the guy who get crossways with it until then.

By the way, after Ashcroft v Free Speech, the rewrite of the law didn't quite comply with the ruling. The ruling said that computer generated images were not criminal (at least that's the way I read the case). The rewrite didn't decriminalize computer generated images, but merely carved out a defense. Thus, a person could still be charged, and would have to hire an attorney to defend, and if they couldn't afford one or got a public defender who was overworked and had no clue what Poser was, well, so be it. I hate child porn and child abuse. I've defended two cases while working for firms and hope to NEVER EVER have to do that again. At the same time, I'm just not convinced that the laws have carved out an adequate exception for Cupid post cards or the human form in Poser. Right now its up to prosecutorial discretion. Some young buck itching to notch his pen and make a name will prosecute whereas a seasoned and life experienced adult prosecutor will know the difference between child porn and a mesh from DAZ. Unfortunately, the lawmakers can't seem to make that distinction in writing, they can't seem to craft a law that delineates one from the other. And that is bothersome. One of these days I'll find time for a law review article.

This has been going on for years in the UK. I took a picture of my kids sharing a bath together when they were younger, the room was smothered in bubbles from bubble bath so all that could be seen was their heads, but when developed that particular picture & negative were missing. They don't need to pass a law to infinge on your freedom of speech, these days the only freedom most people have is the freedom to do what you're told.

first of all, politicians RARELY go looking for laws to make. these types of things are usually brought about by some group who for some reason gets freaked out by certain things. it would be interesting to know exactly what lobby decided to make the case against 3d human meshes. secondly, instead of everyone getting their panties in a bunch, just go online (if you're reading this, you're already here!) and go to the home page of your state elected officials and politely ask them to explain the meaning of that bill, then let them know why you're concerned. counteract those people who over-react. your lawmakers aren't doing this because of the economy or the war or any other reason, other than the people who freak out are making a big fuss, while the people like us are staying quiet. they're only getting one side of the story. be heard. i'll agree that child porn is nasty, disgusting stuff, and the people who produce it should go to jail. but i've also dated 20-somethings that looked like young teens, and you know? who cares? people can't help the way they look. if a 3d mesh looks young, so what? a lot of people look younger than they are. just keep cool and say "this is not child porn. this isn't meant to be porn, and that 3d figure is 18 or older and got her parent's consent first ;) "

Most of the fairy stuff is just cute fantasy and has minimal sexual connotation anyway. Showing them naked might be a bit prurient and obviously showing them copulating is arguably pornographic. But I get the impression that these people want to ban possession of the meshes themselves! Make no mistake, the worst of them want your Eve4 and Victoria 3 meshes erased from your computer! We had a case here in Canada a while back where drawings or other digital pictures were confiscated and the Supreme Court threw it out because no children were abused anywhere in the creation of the material. But some of the laws that the moronic morals policers want to pass are just ludicrous--even to the point of banning a writer from writing about things it is legal for him to DO!! I hate real child porn with a passion and the people who make it should be taken down hard because they are abusing children to make their stuff. But sculptures and paintings (which is what Poser art is really) should be exempt, since the only source is the artist's imagination.

find out who your reps are and ask them to take this all into consideration. you're all trying to convince people who already believe... now try to convince the people who make the laws.

It's a waste of time, richnovak. For every artist who is available to speak out, there are probably a thousand who would speak in an opposite voice who are convinced that CGI images cause people to gravitate toward child pornography and sexually abusing children (and the combination of the both). At those odds, and the need to get votes...whose voice will be heard?

Yes, the world is going to hell in a handbasket, so it's time to attack all instances of handbaskets. It's national hysteria time! This is the REAL problem. The average American's (and Canadian's) ability to think logically has been sapped by a steady diet of TV sound bytes and ridiculous commercials. It started back at the beginning of the drug war when we were told that some large percentage of heroin addicts had a history of marijuana use. Nobody bothered to mention that 100% of them had a history of drinking soda pop!

see, the problem is just that: we've convinced ourselves that our voices mean shit, that we'll always be outnumbered. that way of thinking will be what beats us down, not the people who let us do it. screw it. i'll send a letter tonight. ren

Could you guys please take the political/social commentary to OT? thanks! Lyrra BTW as far as Renderosity is concerned as long as we are based in the US, we must obey US laws.

Sure you must OBEY US laws. But the day they make a law saying you can't protest a bad law, there is no more US. The constitution will be scrap on that day.... Anyway...this is all off topic unless there is some case specifically dealing with poser meshes that we possess and use.

Hehe.. nice to see that TheWanderer speaks Elvish :) Well.. if I must say one thing about this subject... Better a 3D-child being molested, than a real one, IMHO.. atleast then no one gets hurt.. (Although I wouldn't be author of the pics. I knew a girl who was molested by her father, thank god my mother put a stop to it by turning him into the police.)

I'm not too worried. Even if that bill did pass it says you can't render an image that is Indistinguishable from a real minor. Mil Girls are quite distinguishable! But I agree in the future as models become more and more realistic they shouldn't be limiting us. I always thought child porn was illegal just because it involved abuseing minors in order to create it. Obviously there is no abuse in sculpting a 3D mesh. Where would it all end? It's far to subjective! I have a little more faith in the Supreme Court though, I'd be really surprised if it would uphold that type of nonsense.

{This from the same assholes who are busily wrecking the education system, healthcare system, and calling the school lunch and scholarship programs 'handouts'.} Don't forget that this is the same US government that will be spending millions of dollars to help reduild Irai schools so the Iraqi children will get the best education that they can get. Meanwhile, our own kids face budget cuts, classes in portable trailers, over-crowded classes and more. We're still suffering from the fallout of huge corporation greed and fraud, yet we're worrying about "virtual child porn"? {Where would it all end? It's far to subjective! I have a little more faith in the Supreme Court though, I'd be really surprised if it would uphold that type of nonsense. } But, why should they have to even listen to this nonsense? aren't there more important cases to be heard? Why should we waste taxpayers money on having judges decide if the law is legal or not?

i don't know where you all go to school at. my high school got a bunch of money from the state (millions) and what did they do? they squandered it on a new gym, while we didn't have enough books for us to take home at night. i can hardly blame that on the government. i'm not even going to touch on iraq. to close right now.

OK, easy fix, mobius part of it, that way it'll never look real, how aboutone of the hands? Thank God I don't live in the US... later jb

Of course, you could always have real picturea and use the mobius effect to make them look computer generated... Those who want to find evil will find it anywhere. In "The Lucifer Principle - A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History," Howard Bloom advances the thesis that whem empires are collapsing, sexual hysteria is one of the tactics used to avoid looking at real threats. Of course, the US is finding enemies within and without so I don't know what that means. If Bush starts sleeping with his horse and pimping out the Senator's wives, be afraid.

I'd be more afraid if people actually wanted to actually sleep with the senators wives, especially if they had to pay for the priviledge... :P later jb

Fear Factor D.C.? There was one-time congressional wife Rita Jenrette years ago. She appeared in Playboy and classic films such as "Maiibu Bikini Babes." Of course her husband was a congressman, not a senator. Surely there must be one or mixed in there today. Heck, Strom Thurmond married a 22 year old former Miss S. Carolina when he was 66 and had 4 kids with her long before Viagra was invented. Much as I diasgree with most of Strom's politics, the old boy is a stud.