I kinda think that the original topic is pretty reasonable for the forum here, since we make those attempts at beauty within Poser.

Even if it is "OT"  I see alot of posts here alot more "OT" than this. 

Quote - > Quote -

What are the actual US Laws pertaining to Poser Renders?

Is there a distinction made in  US laws on images between nude images and sexual images?

 

You're going to need a lawyer to answer the questions you have.

However, you need to be aware that Renderosity has the right to set their own standards of what's acceptable, as long as they are more restrictive then the laws.

General discussions about US laws on the topic really don't belong in Renderosity's forums.

No offense, obviously RMP has its own TOS. I don't think this thread is about RMP TOS. I do not show images here so it is of no consequence to me what the image TOS is but I think a forum on use of Poser is a legitamite place to ask what the US law is in regards to images created with Poser.

Of course if I wished to make erotic images or images of persons under age 21 I could employ the services of a US Law lawyer to interpret the statutes for me but since I do not intend to make such images it would be an expensive way to satisfy my curiosity :) It is odd though if no one in America can even hazard a guess at what images are legal and what images are not legal in that place.

How can artist's function in an environment where they no not the law possibly applied? Is the film "Taxi Driver" legal? Or the film "The Little Girl Who Lived Down the Lane" with the same child actress appearing (or body double) totally nude in a sexual scene of a character 13 years if I recall. I read that the new Geremey Irons "Lolita" showed simulated sex with minor actress. BTW I hate the American use of the word "Lolita" as anyone who reads the book understands she is an innocent victom whose life is utterly destroyed and in no way a "suductress"! The ending of the book is devastating more than even the rest.

Anyway, I find it odd if nobody knows or can point to litterature of reference regarding what US law is on CG images. Clearly I would not expect definitive legal  finding as that is obtained in court, issues of copyright for instance would not require legthy littigation if all answers were clear cut, yet in copyright forum of RMP people do hazzard basic understandings of pertinant law.

E.G. Digital character percieved as under age of 21 years may not be created in nude or sexual render in USA.

Please no offense or flame. I am just curious what the basic common understanding of the law is? It seems to me common sense would be no human head less the eighteen on nude render and no small chested narrow hipped body rendered nude without 45 years age plus head is sensible but is anywhere it indicated what the actual matter of laws is? This seems legitamite Poser topic IMHO :)

It pretty much comes down to a matter of one persons taste. not principals or legalities.
    It only takes one person to find something offensive, to ruin someones work and others enjoyment no matter is its nudity violence or whatever.
here the pen is mightier than the sword where what the mods say goes.
    Another problem is as in one of the earlier posts talking about "child porn" well here in the US nude figures of ANY age is legal depending on the pose, circumstances and state law. where of course anything that is gratuitous is illegal. 
    I can legally buy and own something by David Hamilton, Jock Sturgis, Sally Mann and whoever else has nudist type art. however if one pic of a 13yr old is posed in penthouse fashion well then the crap will hit the fan and rightfully so.
    I did not see the Utopia picture but just from the head shot it looks as though the picture may have been in portrait fashion which is totally legal, but this site and some members of it decided either the pic was in their mind distasteful or better yet too close to crossing the TOS lines and decided to ban the pic.
    This site will probably come down to one of 2 things either A: all nudity will be banned cause one person does not find it artistic.  or B: all nudes must not have a facial shot and breasts must be bigger that a C cup cause any smaller than a C means the girl is underage. not to mention pigtails will not be allowed cause that suggests underage as well.

I guess in a nutshell how does one determine whether or not ones pic will be appropriate.
Well if the thought ever crosses your mind will my pic be removed? then the answer is it probably will, if you  asked yourself that question then it's probably too close to crossing that line.
just my two cents.... and of course sarcasm is free  :biggrin:

I perfectly remenber that when I released a character for Miki - Linda -   and I was invited to change the promos because she has been consider a child.
Sometimes we think that we are working with an adult character but they can be seen by others as a child. People must be careful with child nudity!

Quote - I perfectly remenber that when I released a character for Miki - Linda -   and I was invited to change the promos because she has been consider a child.

To me with that particular character (very beautiful by the way... and my namesake! :) ) it depends on the angle of render and the expression.

In some of those images she looks like a young girl, but others (the left profile) she looks adult. The hairless image looks borderline to me and if my vote still counted, I would have voted passable.

I've seen this in simple set of headshots of a single actress.  One tilt of the head, and years are removed.

Well, having seen a render with nekkid milbabies recently in the gallery made me wonder how long it was going to be in there before it'll be yanked lol.
The render was very well done, but that never figures into things. I don't remember whose it was, nor would I post it if I did, because it doesn't bother me.

I often think that this 'omg kiddie pron alert' mentality is going seriously overboard these days. I know of a guy who tried out a camera and filmed his toddler son splashing around in a kiddie pool - and accidentally put the wrong tape in the camera when he sent the camera back. (the son's tape instead of the blank one he'd meant to put in) He called the company to get the tape - next thing he knew he got accused of distributing child porn... I mean come ON now...
Yes, I know we have a duty to protect children, but quite frankly, seeing a sex offender at every corner is ridiculous.
It's like playing an online videogame and being told "Watch what you say there may be children around".
I mean, excuse me, but any parent letting their kids - of any age - play such a game unsupervised has absolutely no right to complain about language or behavior that kid is exposed to. What's more... 99.9% of the time it's the kid instigating it. Heck, I was told once "my 4 year old plays a warrior" and my reply was 'What the HELL is a 4 year old doing anywhere near a computer?" A 4 year old should be out, playing in a sandbox or something.

Sorry, but the whole thing just annoys me, because the people who let a 4 year old play games like Everquest or WoW are usually the very same ones who scream bloody murder at anything that might show a nipple. Or God forbid, the face has big eyes and looks kiddie like.

Yes, I think it has gone overboard and it's getting worse.

I mean... no nudity. Ok.
Don't ever let your kids go to Firenze then. They might clap eyes on Michelangelo's Allegoria. Or God forbid you go to Powis Castle in Wales where you might gaze upon Cavaceppi's "Boy holding Dove".

Not to mention... Cherubs... are... freaking EVERYWHERE at Christmas time.

I think that Cavaceppi feller should be investigated. That child is naked, after all.
cough
Seriously, I think sometimes paranoia sets in.
No, I don't condone kiddie porn. I also don't think people post that kind of stuff here. Something tells me those who want that kind of stuff would know where to find the real thing anyway and wouldn't bother with scanning Rendo Galleries.
Heck, if you want pictures of naked girls - there's no shortage of those on the Net, lets face it.

Sorry, I'm just sick of having to scrutinize everything we do these days so we don't offend anyone. If it's a case of changing art to avoid offending anyone, we offend and censor our inner artist most of all and the resulting piece isn't what it had been intended to be.
I'd just love to see somone tell Michelangelo that naked breasts and "Free Willies" are offensive. :)
David would never be the same, poor feller....

Quote - Sometimes Im amazed at internet forum interpretations.  I read the OP, and completely understood it.    It's a pretty interesting topic actually and as far as I can see it has nothing at all to do with whether or not said image was allowed at rendo, or CP.
It's about what makes beauty and how to aspire to that within the realm of acceptable age appearance.

Thank you! Finally, someone got the point! How do we pursue surreal beauty, if pictures like mine (where I simply tried to make as beautiful a face as I could make)are refused? The most beautiful face imaginable and "computer-makeable" will have an "apparent age" of appr. 14 years, if we are to believe the scientist. What could the harm be in attaching that face to a body that is clearly that of an adult woman, as I did? Anyone will be able to see that the "person" depicted is "adult"! "what makes beauty and how to aspire to that within the realm of acceptable age appearance" - sums it up pretty nicely! Any thoughts on that, folks? What do you think of my three principles?

On a related subject, if you want to accurately capture the anime "look," you will produce a face that looks "young."  There is no way around it (that is, for the typical anime female -- there are certainly older faces in anime!)

It's sort of like "paint some cherubim, but don't make them look like babies."  Not going to work.  (Not, that is, unless you listen to Madelyne d'Engle -- but I digress....!)

But hitting the problem from a different direction; a high school student in Kyoto may wear a sailor suit uniform with a skirt length well above her knees.  But you put a western actress in a school uniform with a short skirt, it is going to imply one thing and one thing only to a western audience.  And that one thing is not reading, writing, nor arithmatic.

The most innocuous of poses, the most innocuous of outfits, can be within the right (wrong) context read as extremely sexual.  Sometimes a cigar just wont stay a cigar.

Interesting thread.

"How do we pursue surreal beauty, if pictures like mine (where I simply tried to make as beautiful a face as I could make)are refused? The most beautiful face imaginable and "computer-makeable" will have an "apparent age" of appr. 14 years"

My .00002 cents:

Beauty is more than skin deep perhaps?  Showing the person behind the face might be just as important?

There's a mini series hosted by John Cleese called "The Human Face".  In one of the episodes they discuss what makes a face beautiful.  You might find some answers there.  Here's a link to it on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280262/

For what it's worth there's a theory that it's an evolutionary reason that younger faces are considered more beautiful.

Quote - [Anyway, I find it odd if nobody knows or can point to litterature of reference regarding what US law is on CG images. Clearly I would not expect definitive legal  finding as that is obtained in court, issues of copyright for instance would not require legthy littigation if all answers were clear cut, yet in copyright forum of RMP people do hazzard basic understandings of pertinant law.

E.G. Digital character percieved as under age of 21 years may not be created in nude or sexual render in USA.

Well, since I don't intend to create images that may fall into this category by any stretch of the immagination, I never bothered to get familiar with laws that govern that.

On the other hand, I know that Renderosity's standards are stricter then the basic laws, because they don't want to get in a position where someone even attempts to accuse them of spreading child pornography (in US there's a big hoopla about this), so, if in doubt, it appears that renderosity errs on the side of safety.

Third thing, age of consent is more dependent on emotional and mental age rather then physical appearance. There's plenty of 20-something's that may apper to look like an "AVERAGE" 16 year old, to most people, and lead most people to conclude "she must be around 16", if the age was based on physical appearance only.

Attached Link: International Ages of Consent

The international age of consent is - on average - 16.

Check out that chart I've linked some time. It's a bit of an eye opener. (I always thought all of USA was 18, but looks like I was wrong.)

I think the whole judgement of apparent age is off, really. Because the apparent age of 13 will be fine (legally, not necessarily morally) in Spain, but not in Peru.

Art is subjective and open to interpretation. And there will always be someone who interprets a nude picture to be porn, regardless of who created it, or what it depicts, or it's context. To some people a cigar is not just a cigar and never will be.
But I honestly do not see a problem with a cutesey face on a lush body. I mean, take Vanessa Paradis and Kate Moss for instance.
Both have (had) very childlike faces and yet... no one would condemn the magazines (or the photographers) for printing the pictures as "underage".
I just have to look at Vogue covers.

That's a baby face, if you ask me. (And she's probably no older than 15 anyway)
I don't see anyone complain about her being on a cover or strutting her stuff in a skimpy bikini or with one boob hanging out on a catwalk. After all. It's "fashion". (which doesn't make it right)
I think what I hate most about the entire "beauty / childlike" debate is the fact that there are so many double standards.

Interesting link there Silke.
What amazes me is how many countries make it illegal for unmarried people to have sex. What century do we live in again?

What I also find interesting are the age range differences in Canada & the US. I guess some young people will just hop over from one province/state to another so they can do it legally!

Do you really have to pollute this thread by discussing these things here? This is OffTopic, even though it is related to the topic...

Quote - Do you really have to pollute this thread by discussing these things here? This is OffTopic, even though it is related to the topic...

?

*So images viewed by a Spaniard will be judged differently by them to images viewed by a Californian who will likely be shocked at anything looking 16.

*Yeh, but here in kookyfornia we have nutcases whom are willing to molest even toddlers, so public has gotten hypervigilant.

About actual models, with Kate moss etc, there's solid proof that they are not underage, so if they look lollipop like or child-like, thhere's no question they are legal.

With CGI, there is no actual live model (unless it's a portrait of a specific live person), so the age a picture looks is most likely what it's going to lebeled to be. If it can be debated that a portion of population can reasonably see it as underge, then those wanting to err on the side of safety will vote to remove it's nudes.

Places like Rendo always need to worry about how their local police enforcement may see certain pictures. Last thing they need is cops knocing on their door telling them they are under investigation for promoting child pornography. Doesn't matter if they're actually guilty ot that it can be reasonably argued that a particular picture is not really underage. A prudent business practice is to not put yourself in a position to even be accused.

For those whom insist on appreciating beauty of barely legals are going to have to do it more privately. Insisting on flaunting one's sexuality or sexual preferences in public is really not necessary, whatever your preferences are, young, old, round, flat or prickly. 
Nor is it anyone's legally protecetd right. Art or not.

Now, about the fact that most people, especially men, are attracted to young looking and symmetrical figures, that's been known for a very long time, and on average, it appears to be true.

Reminds me of one of Terry Pratchett's novels, "The truth" where one if his characters says, "People don't want news, they want to talk about 'olds' "

Now, considering I have a 19 year old step-daughter whom looks like a model, I'm mostly concerned about other things then just guys appreciating her looks. Her emotional well being is much higher on my list then someone's desire to appreciate her looks for sexual gratification.

She's 19 going on 40, but she's still not ready to handle a lot of things that life can throw at her. Her and a lot of her friends. I didn't think so when I was 19 - back then I knew everything about everything. Looking at my stepdaughter right now, she is so impressionalbe and so lacking life experience, she, and most girls her age are really easy targets of taking advantage of.
Also, there's a big difference in emotional maturity between 19 and 25.

So, when I see pictures of barely legals, I find it really damn hard to feel symphatetic of some guy insisting he has to go for that age to get his knosks off. I don't find him appreciating 'beauty'. It makes me wonder why he can't seem to handle someone only a few years older (24, 25 or so), but much more emotionally mature.

Did you know there's a large segment of pedophiles that will claim they actually love and want to protect and appreciate their victims, and they think sexual contact and sexualizing them is the way to do it.

Quote - So, when I see pictures of barely legals, I find it really damn hard to feel symphatetic of some guy insisting he has to go for that age to get his knosks off. I don't find him appreciating 'beauty'. It makes me wonder why he can't seem to handle someone only a few years older (24, 25 or so), but much more emotionally mature.

Talking of young beauty, what about those weirdos at nudist camps who let their children particiapte in those nude pageants. WTF!! Who would subject their own children to that?
I know this has gone off topic but it annoys me.

Quote - Talking of young beauty, what about those weirdos at nudist camps who let their children particiapte in those nude pageants. WTF!! Who would subject their own children to that? I know this has gone off topic but it annoys me.

Gawd, don't get me started on that!!!  We got plenty of those 'round here in kookyfornia too.

*That's a baby face, if you ask me. (And she's probably no older than 15 anyway)

Looks like you posted a picture of Heather Marks, a canadian supermodel, born in 1988, age 19.

*I don't see anyone complain about her being on a cover or strutting her stuff in a skimpy bikini or with one boob hanging out on a catwalk. After all. It's "fashion". (which doesn't make it right)
I think what I hate most about the entire "beauty / childlike" debate is the fact that there are so many double standards.

Different facets of society tend to have different standards and value systems. That's not news to you, is it? Even different people have different standards from one to the other person.  It's a pretty normal thing. 
Heck, here's plenty of people whom apply different standards to different situations. Even that is rather normal. Not something to strive for or look up to, but pretty normal.

Attached Link: A3/H3

Yeah, Heather Marks. 19? Not much older than 15 to me lol.
Just shows you. To me, her apparent age was 15 and to me she had no place being that young and being on a cover, but if that image had been painted / CGI I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's all about perception. And about whether we are talking about a living breathing human being - or a bunch of pixels. I'm more inclined to allow younger looking faces on pinup style renders than I would ever be of a photograph of the same nature.
Thing is, it's not just the girls, it's the boys, too. I just think the lines between innocent images and intentional images has been blurred beyond all recognition.

Yes, CGI Characters have no age as such and the apparant age is the actual age in their case. But at the same time, people need to remember that these are not people, but pixels. I don't want to see or condone any form of child abuse, be it via images or physically.
Yes, Rendo has stricter standards, and I agree with them. I don't want people to get the impression I don't.
However, sometimes I wonder why one image is allowed and another is removed. And in most cases I actually hear about, it seems like someone overreacted.

Take Thorne & Sarsa's character morphs for instance. I've heard mutterings about their apparent childlike features. This doesn't disturb me. I think they are pretty and cute, but I can also understand some of the concern I've seen once or twice. Again, it's perception and to me they are more toony than real, what with the big eyes and things Toony also seems to be more acceptable and forgivable. Take Hiro for instance.
Put him in a bishi pose with smoldering looks in his toony big eyed face and no one is going to slamdunk you over it. Put T&S's Larkyn (for instance) in the same situation and you might just find yourself nailed to the wall for it.
The link might give you an idea. Same pose on both, but it's the faces that give you the "kids" impression. If you were to take the clothes off... well... you'd have a definite "eek" factor.
To me, I feel A3 looks about 14 and Hiro about the same, if not a tiny bit younger.
But if you changed the eyes (mainly) you'd have a whole different impression. It's those big eyes that do it, mostly.

Quote - Yes, Rendo has stricter standards, and I agree with them. I don't want people to get the impression I don't.However, sometimes I wonder why one image is allowed and another is removed. And in most cases I actually hear about, it seems like someone overreacted.

It's just how it is and depends a lot on context, luck, quality of your work, who you are, who is doing the judging... Look at this pic for example:

One last time

It's clearly underage, and the symbolism is quite obvious... But because it's Stahlberg (who pretty much invented the whole CG chick phenomenon) he can get away with it. Heck that image has even been featured in a number of art books, including the one(s) by CGTalk. The fact that its beautiful work and not blatantly sexy also helps people to accept it as 'art' and not 'porn'

Now compare that to some newbie posting a similar (but typically poser-ish) work at a site full of pin ups and nudes (rosity) and you can guess the reaction it would get. Is this sort of thing wrong and hypocritical ? Perhaps. But then who ever said we live in a fair world...

ghonma - That is a very good example. I've seen that work before & there's no doubt it's a great work of art. If it was posted here though it would surely be pulled.

Quote - Anyway, I find it odd if nobody knows or can point to litterature of reference regarding what US law is on CG images. Clearly I would not expect definitive legal  finding as that is obtained in court, issues of copyright for instance would not require legthy littigation if all answers were clear cut, yet in copyright forum of RMP people do hazzard basic understandings of pertinant law.

E.G. Digital character percieved as under age of 21 years may not be created in nude or sexual render in USA.

I posted several links to articles where this is discussed so far as US Laws are concerned.

In Canada it's a bit more "grey".  Age of consent here is 14 years old, and there have been some cases where a male was caught with naked pictures of children,  but could not be charged. Why? Because he was taking the photos himself for his own "viewing pleasure" and was not  distributing them. There seems to be a law against distributing "child porn", but not making it for your own viewing.

I'm gonna take on the idiots perspective on this (i.e. the perspective where you haven' read the entire thread because there are bazillion of these and they never get anywhere); Feel free to ignore this, But:
1.If your character looks like a 12 year schoolgirl, then yeah, maybe you should put some clothing on her. Just a thought.
2.There are actually renders out there, that aren't nudes and look great anyway. Seriously there are. O_O. I'm not kidding. Honestly! Even in the poser gallery.Non nudes I tell you! You just have to know where to look. So, the 12 year old schoolgirl character might look great with some clothes on. Or so they tell me...