If I am not mistaken, a couple of years ago or last year, wasn't there a ruling by the supreme court regarding child pronography? And I am paraphrasing....something like "...it is not considered pornography because CGI is not real...", something like that right? If I am correct in my assumption this line in the EULA for AMG... "Likewise, any pornographic or otherwise degrading and/or demeaning material created using this product, along with her name, cannot be distributed without her written permission as well" This can't really matter, there is no pornography according to the supreme court cause it isn't real if it is CGI....right? Hope I asked this correctly....Sharen PS: this does not really pertain to AMG, it is a question I have been wondering for a while, I think of it because I read the EULA of AMG that is all, please don't read anything into this question.

I think it is a very fine line at this moment in time as to what is and what is not child porn. I think if they wanted to enforce the issue they would change the laws etc.. to suit their needs. Just because it as not happened just yet does not mean it will not happen. The problem comes when you look at were to draw the line. Stop child porn by stopping all images of children being distributed will piss off some parents because they want to send images of their kids to friends and family. Saying CGI is not real is also short sighted of them. Some pervert could create an image of child pornography and not be treated seriously due to it not being real (were did they get their inspiration) Unfortunately there will not be an answer to this until they change the rules and someone goes to court and gets convicted for it. When that happens, some people here (not saying you are doing child porn) will need to look closely at their work. Is that image of the sprite an image of a sprite or a nude child??? Just me rambling on.......

Last I heard, I think the ultra-right was trying to get that ruling reversed.

There is no such thing as a legal contract that breaks the law. But, a contract often consists of one or more of the parties promising not to exercise what would otherwise be a legal right.

For instance:

Murder contract: Err... Not legal and binding.

Sharen rubs her husband's feet every day contract: Yes, binding, so long as a judge doesn't decide it's ridiculously unfair, i.e. his feet are deadly, or it is slavery (you're receiving nothing in return).

Because the AMG EULA doesn't break any laws, it's like any other contract. If it is breached, civil litigation can be the result. But, nobody could go to jail for posing the digital Dutch bunny in the Russian splits over a cross , if that's what you're wondering, because bad taste isn't illegal.

They never argued that cgi couldn't be pornography, I think the argument revolved around there not being a victem since the kids were cgi.

The problem is what "pornographic" mean, for me something can be porn and for other person is not, and so on........

and all the laws are country dependant for the moment. What is legal in the US could not be legal in Europe. Lc

Not to mention the vast differences in the age of concent from country to country

I'm not a lawyer (thank whatever powers may or may not exist for small mercies) but I think this is what's called a shrinkwrap contract, and is totally without force in most places (with California being an exception). Once you've purchased the product, it's yours. They can't dictate to you what you can and can't do with it. Frankly, I think EULAs are arrogant and obnoxious. A far better choice in this case would have been a polite request appealing to common decency rather than legal sturm und drang with no real power in any case.

She can control what's done with her name though. I fully believe that was the initial concern w/ AMG so why they initially included what images could be made with them is beyond me. (as is why someone who's posed nude in playboy might be concerned about nude cgi images as well) Her name is the only real thing she and DAZ has to protect.

Attorney General Ashcroft was unhappy with the Supremes' opinion. Apparently he's alarmed by the realism of characters generated by programs like Poser, and the potential for abuse. What was alarming to me was his stated desire to go after software, as opposed to individuals who use it to commit crimes. I doubt if he would succeed in anything so fascistic as trying to make art software illegal or restricted. I've seen images made with Poser that made me uncomfortable, usually the result of differences between acceptable ages of depiction between other countries and my own, but what I haven't seen is what I would consider to be actual Poser-generated kid porn. Perhaps it's out there, but I doubt if you'd come across it without actually looking for it. I'm not crazy about artists who obsessively depict topless "faeries" that appear to be children, but I don't think that most of them intend to be grotesque or abusive at all. Just a difference of values. (I hope.) That sort of not-sexual-but-naked thing is all about perceptions, for which there will never be a perfect consensus. The debate about what's porn and what isn't goes 'round and 'round, and I for one don't pretend to have the answers. However, I have great faith in common sense. In other words, if you aren't fully confident that something you render or something you look at isn't abusive or pornographic in the morally and legally wrong sorts of ways, then stay the heck away. Most of us "know porn when we see it." Yes, that's exceedingly fuzzy, but again, common sense. In my opinion standards like those right here at Rosity are a good guide, especially as regards what is put out for public viewing. Staying away from the "gray areas," if you're inclined to venture there, could only be prudent.

HeWhoWatches: "I'm not a lawyer (thank whatever powers may or may not exist for small mercies) but I think this is what's called a shrinkwrap contract, and is totally without force in most places (with California being an exception). Once you've purchased the product, it's yours. They can't dictate to you what you can and can't do with it."

When one is not a lawyer, one must be careful making blanket statements and generalizations regarding legal issues. There are young people here and people not familiar with the law that can be misled by incorrect advice that could involve them in costly litigation.

In the United States a "shrinkwrap license" is considered a contract, it is generally terms in the license that are contrary to existing state or federal laws that are unenforcable. The license DAZ uses would be more commonly called a "clickwrap license", the term derived from the requirement to "click" an "I Agree" button after reading the license which is displayed on the screen by the installation program. Such licenses have been found to be enforcable by most courts including the Seventh Circuit Court. When in doubt about your rights vs the license...it's safest to consult a lawyer.

Reread the poser 4 EULA or the revised Poser 5 EULA about similarity to this subject. it's going to be very interesting in the future. I really liked the movie Simone it brought up a lot of ethical issues in the area of CGI actors/characters. can we kill a CGI character off with ultra violence, rape, porn etc. interpretation of 'art' is always fun to watch. I'm gunna have to go back and reread the supremes' case. if anybody has a link to the decision please post it, I'd like to read it again.

The reason CG art of kiddie porn was ruled, well, 'not illegal' was because no actual children were depicted or abused in making the renders. Making something demeaning to AMG's image is another story, just as if I were to make a CG render of someone looking exactly like Hillary Clinton engaging in sex with a German Shepard. In such a case, I would fully expect to be hit with a lawsuit and rightfully so, since CG or not, I would be gratuitously demeaning the image of someone. There may be some sort of defense in claiming parody, and no matter how disgusting, if parody or political speech can be proven (good luck - you'll have to persuade 12 strangers of this, in addition to the judge), then and only then would you be off the hook. Take my example of Sen. Clinton (or Pres. Bush - pick yer poison) humping a dog. If I labelled the dog "Special Interest Groups", then I can credibly claim parody and be free from any litigation - public figures (esp. political ones) are not safe from actual and obvious parody or protest that uses their image, no matter how crude or disgusting the parody may be. Note that this is only (IMHO) according to US law... everyone else had better check up their own laws first. If it's gratuitous (that is, not a form of political speech), and especially done against an expressly written EULA that you had to agree to before downloading or buying a likeness of the person, then you've opened yourself wide to being sued. /P

Thanks for clearing this up...I have a better understanding then I did before...Sharen

The last I heard was that any actor real or CG or adult that attempts to portray themselves as children doing sexual acts is considered Child Pronography.

Two small points: 1. The legislative debates and the language of the law that was struck down are such that it was aimed much more at photo-manipulation from apps like Photoshop than 3D apps, particularly Poser. The theory is that ultra-realistic cg-kiddie porn, like real kiddie porn, could be used by pedophiles to help convince kids that what they were proposing was a normal activity. 2. I seem to recall that a new version of the law that was struck down, written to attempt to meet the Supremes' objections, has passed and is winding its way through the courts again. And while I enjoy a good legal debate, if your sole concern is the impact of such a law on you as a Poser artist here, I would simply note that I have been here since the Willow/Grey days, and have yet to see any image that would have fallen within the scope of this law. The TOS here have always been stricter than the that law, or the new one.

only in the US is parody protected like that I think... those protections largely don't exist in most of Europe and not in the UK either... much stronger libel and trademark laws here. you have to understand, AMG's business is based on her image and name, and these things can be and often are trademarked. If a public figure has a trademark on this, and can reasonably prove (or not so reasonably... as my boyfriend found out the hard way with his own birthname that happened to be partially trademarked by another company... grr) that you've damaged a trademark, it can be very expensive. Even if you're in the right and even if you haven't harmed anyone. This has been going on for years over here in Europe, mainly with internet sites but not exclusively. Try Michael Schumaker suing a shoe cobbler's website for being named schuemaker.de... meaning shoemaker but ... the racecar driver won... even though he doesn't make shoes and the shoe site wasn't bothering him either! Or a Dr. Shell being sued successfully by Shell Oil, simply because they wanted his sexy internet name shell.de and preferred to steal it rather than honestly pay the guy for it. soooo.... you only have a right to even your name if you trademarked it first... :/ The worst part of this is that the laws are written in that you have to defend your trademark legally in order to keep it strong... so lawsuits in this area are much more likely to occur from an infringement than the usual EULA or copyright infringement deal. so what's AMG's Eula have to do with the child porno controversy... not a thing. Her EULA about making damaging porn has to do with her business, which most likely involves trademark, and the child porno amendments have to do with victims of pornography that don't exist... apples and oranges.

bijouchat is correct in a very broad sense about the EULA, though I might pick a few nits... It's true that the UK and Europe have libel laws far less protective of speech than in the US. However, having watched "Spitting Image" a few times, and noting that a recent #1 hit song skewered Gerhardt Schroeder at length, there would appear to be some breathing room in Europe for parody, satire and fair comment. Of course, to return to the larger point, one would have to be creative to get virtual porn made with the AMG clone to fall into one of those categories. In the US, protection of name and likeness generally does not come from trademark laws, which actually allow similar names (at least on a local basis) where there is little likelihood of confusion between two names. Indeed, within the past few months the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a lingerie store named "Victor's Little Secret" in a case brought by You Know Who. Instead, there has been a growing trend in the US to recognize a "right to publicity," even of the dead, in statutory and case law. Internet domains are actually another issue, largely governed by international law. For example, Julia Roberts was able to stop a cybersquatter hoping to exploit her name, but Madonna was not, as there could be a madonna.com that did not simply exploit her image.

its a little different in the US than here in Germany, that's for sure. Germany boasts some of the strongest laws in the world regarding trademark. Been through the whole trademark process first hand... so I know what I'm talking about, from either side of the fence. I wish it had to do with just internet in our case when my bf was sued, but it had just as much to do with radio... big trademark holder being a television-radio station and journalist boyfriend having written a book on ham radio several years ago (before internet days). They used his book writing about radio to reverse hijack his personal domain name, and succeeded to some degree... not only in causing him to lose his domain name (his name initials are the same as their station, and he has to use them in his work as most magazines here use the initials of the authors to sign the bottom of the article, with a key in the back as to who's who... he's been using his initials in his work for over 20 years and he's known by them), but also trying to declare amateur radio a commercial activity (they want the frequencies) and also... in running up a huge amount of lawyer debt and court costs... to make us give up :( They didn't just sue us either, UBS Warburg ended up changing their name from a similar lawsuit from the same station that sued us... so it can hit large and small. anyway, after that happened, he went and got a trademark on his full name so they can't sue him again at the new site that he uses for work. not a pretty picture... but anyway. Do be careful with using a name of anyone or any company that's well known, even if its inadvertant and even if it is your own name, they can sue and many do, and its very expensive if it happens to you.

oh... I meant to say, the Steuersong ... yeah... Schoeder threatened to sue over that song too... but then his popularity started to plummet even more (can it get lower than zero... ? lol...) and he quietly shut up about it. g