I have no need or intention to render a naked child, but this is an intellectual curiousity.

I read the law - thanks for the link.

In it, there is this:

(**C) It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating paragraph (1), (2), (3)(A), (4), or (5) of subsection (a) that—
   ...
**

**(2) the alleged child pornography was not produced using any actual minor or minors.
**
That clause (C-2) seems to be an obvious exclusion. It requires that actual minor or minors had to be involved in the production of the alleged pornography. 

I'm pretty sure the legal definition of a minor is an actual human under a certain age, not a simulated human, or computer model of a human, or a dog or cat, or a chair.

But markschum pointed out that there is legal precedent indicating that some CGI images have been deemed child porn.

Which tells me that reading the law isn't going to help, since after doing so I drew the wrong conclusion. I'd think asking a lawyer is the only right answer.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)