The federal government has shown that one way or another, they're going to make this kind of imagery illegal.  That Ohio Supreme Court ruling, when you look at the entire text of it, applies to a very specific chunk of Ohio state law and has nothing to do with the current Federal law on a the same topic:

Quote -   1466A.      Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children. 

Additionally:

Quote - SEC. 502. IMPROVEMENTS TO PROHIBITION ON VIRTUAL
2 CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
3 (a) Section 2256(8) of title 18, United States Code,
4 is amended—
5 (1) so that subparagraph (B) reads as follows:
6 ‘‘(B) such visual depiction is a digital
7 image, computer image, or computer-generated
8 image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that
9 of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or’’:
11 (2) by striking ‘‘; or’’ at the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting a period; and
13 (3) by striking subparagraph (D).
14 (b) Section 2256(2) of title 18, United States Code,

The Ohio newspaper article greatly misinterprets the significance of the Ohio Supreme Court ruling:

Quote - It's illegal to create realistic child pornography by digitally grafting images of children and adults, but there's no law against making "virtual" child pornography from scratch, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

That's simply wrong.  Considering the good Mr. Dwight Whorley remains a guest of the Federal penal system, if you're in the United States, you'd be safer not having anything to do with any of the offenses listed in the current Federal laws on "virtual child pornography" (specifically, Sections 1466a and 2256 of Title 18 of the United States Code).

My Freebies