I have a question.
I've been asked to do some, um, VERY adult animations for a friends website. She had seen some earlier, similar work I did on the same line.
Specifically,  she wants something done with with Aurelie, from thorne & sarsa; BellaDonna from content paradise, and Tanith, also from thorne and sarsa.
I've already turned her down ,with the caveat that if she showed me written permission from the creators I would think about it, but the thing that really bothered me after I considered things for a while was the apparent age of the characters specified; are these Virtual Characters Virtually 18 or older?
There are moral considerations to this that puzzle the heck out of me; I'm not sure what I'm supposed to think about this. And I'm not 100% certain that there aren't legal considerations, even though everything is US based?
On the other hand, I really like money.
Comments? thoughts?

Its a real , legal problem that you need to consider.  The Auralie and tanith models I would not have a problem with being 18+.  Check the license for each character to see if "adult" or porn use is restricted, if not then they are for any legal commercial use. 

You may need legal advice , and I have consulted with the local county DA on some requests.

You can ask for opinions at renderotica, its discussed often because its a terms of service issue.

Don't DAZ have a clause in their legalese that says something like, "these models shouldn't be used for porn under threat of prosecution", something like that!!
I read that somewhere, not sure where though so it might be bollocks!!
There's certainly a lot of DAZ peeps in sexual acts at Rotica!! [LOL].

thefixer: that was about the Anna Marie Goddard digital clone - you weren't even allowed to render that mesh without clothes!
I don't think DAZ places any restrictions on the kind of scenes you render their models in. As long as you don't post those renders at DAZ, they probably don't caire.

Ah right, Thanks svdl!

If model age is a question and your friend still insists on using these particular characters, then why not just morph them a little older to qualify.  Underage legality solved.

Quote - If model age is a question and your friend still insists on using these particular characters, then why not just morph them a little older to qualify.  Underage legality solved.

That was something I considered. I also have quite a few original characters I could use, if it came down to it.
I guess I was just trying to see if anyone else had the same sense of cognitive dissonance that I did when thinking about the issue; I was concerned that I might get in legal troubles for creating Virtual Pornography, using a virtual Character, with the main point of concern being that the virtual character might be perceived as being under 18 years of age.
To me, if I turn off my higher brain functions for a minute and just look at the characters, they do appear to have the outward appearance of being modeled on a 16-18 year old female; I know I'm not going to create something that could be misinterpreted as being a video of a real, live female; anyone who sees it is going to know it's CGI. While it is illegal in Germany, for instance, to make or see something like this, it isn't in the US as long as there is no attempt to make people think a real live underage female is involved.
Then, there is the purpose; my friend is setting up a adult website. While i have gone to adult websites to look for pose, texture or lighting research, that is not the reason 99.8% of people go to them; the thought of making money from something like this is...weird.  I don't have any moral opposition to pornography, heck, I like pornography; I've had an account on renderotica ever since they opened. But I never conceived of myself as a commercial pornographer.
Along with most of the country, I'm hurting for money right now; If i could generate some extra money to help buy groceries for my kids by doing a few renders, it would be a major plus.
But the cost is, I think, too high; if the idiots who think teen characters in The Sims 2 with censor blur turned off is child pornography, what the heck would they say about this?

Yes it IS illegal in the USA , several recent court cases have specified that cgi images can be considered child porn. One was in Virginia. This has been discussed at length at renderotica.

If you live in Australia it can mean jail time and sex offender status for creating kiddie porn.

Keep your figures over 18 and its not a problem . There are plenty of websites doing Poser porn so its not going away.

It's not so much the body than head characteristics that will cause problems.
I've had buxom A3 characters pulled from the Rendo gallery due to hear proportions, ie. eye size ratio.
I can see "the authorities" with callipers and slide rules out, wanting to prove a point.
What have we come to?

I know it's not a real rule, but to have an idea about the "perceived age" of a Rendo character (at least in the eyes of the creator) you could simply look at the promo pictures. Almost all "adult" character do have a nude picture, while "underage" characters do not. For example, Aurelie and Tanith are clothed in their promos, so I would avoid to use them in hot situations.

Then maybe some vendors do not like nudity at all in their products, or some stores (like Daz) do not allow it.... but anyway if the rule fails it fails on the safe side.

Giorgio

Quote - I have a question.
I've been asked to do some, um, VERY adult animations for a friends website. She had seen some earlier, similar work I did on the same line.
Specifically,  she wants something done with with Aurelie, from thorne & sarsa; BellaDonna from content paradise, and Tanith, also from thorne and sarsa.
I've already turned her down ,with the caveat that if she showed me written permission from the creators I would think about it, but the thing that really bothered me after I considered things for a while was the apparent age of the characters specified; are these Virtual Characters Virtually 18 or older?
There are moral considerations to this that puzzle the heck out of me; I'm not sure what I'm supposed to think about this. And I'm not 100% certain that there aren't legal considerations, even though everything is US based?
On the other hand, I really like money.
Comments? thoughts?

Rule #1 - When in doubt, don't.  IOW, if you are apprehensive then there is probably good reason.  Decide on what your level of knowledge is on this.  If it is good then you are probably justified in your apprehension.  If it is not, get an opinion of someone who is, preferably an attorney specializing in such matters.

Rule #2 - A 3D model is not a live person and has no birth certificate.  That means, if it can be interpreted as being under-age then you are in trouble.  Pornographers flirt with this all the time doing things like dressing up porno stars in Girl Scout uniforms or as cheerleaders.  But, they can refer to a birth certificate proving the actress is of legal age.  You can't.  Therefore, you MUST be careful in how such renderings can be interpreted.  The phrase used by Justice Potter Stewart in ref to obscenity was "I know it when I see it."  That applies directly to your efforts.  If someone can interpret it as being illegal, you have no birth certificates to back you up if challenged.

Rule #3 - Intent.  What is the intent of the producer?  Keep that in mind.  Intent is going to be an issue and it's usually fairly obvious.  There's that whole "I know it when I see it" thing.  If someone produces a graphic scene and then just sticks fairy wings on the figures, the intent there may be fairly evident.  But, using the same resources and altering the composition and the intent becomes entirely different.  Two fairies flying around a giant sunflower is a heck of a lot different than two fairies doing unmentionable acts with their jiggly bits.

Rule #4 - I am not liable for anything you do.  IOW, don't take my advice or any other person who is not a professional, practicing attorney who is familiar with obscenity/pornography laws and who is being professionally consulted by you or the parties involved.  Casual advice on this is not something to be acted upon.

IMO, the specific characters you mentioned are not intended to be minors.  At least, as far as I can recollect.  IMO, I think that a case could be made for that and establish it.  I also think that if there is much question, you can alter them enough to alleviate certain fears.  Large breasts, slightly stronger facial features, a bit of pubic hair, whatever.  IMO, I also think the community in general is a bit paranoid in regards to this.  But, if they're so paranoid, maybe there is a good reason?  A friend of mine once said that "Poser is for Porn" and, in truth, there is far too much of that in the community for such statements to be completely ignored.

Since there are no birth certificates for pixels, I wouldn't render anything nude.
How could you otherwise prove innocence?

It would be prudent to advice your friend the potential illegality and repercussions of displaying such renders which may be in violation of local and international laws.  I am pretty sure she would not like authorities suddenly knocking on her door and confiscating her computers and servers.  With such reservations on your part, you owe an explanation to your friend how you feel about the situation.  She might reconsider.

The smartest thing you could do is read the law for yourself, and possibly consult a lawyer.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2252A.html

Bickering, speculating, and whining about it on a public intarwebz discussion forum is dumb and at best, will leave you ill informed; at worst, will get you in danger of hard prison time.  Read the law.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

The term means that such a defense will not be immediately declared invalid, not that it will necessarily work.  Although yes, seeing a lawyer is probably not a bad idea if you're interested in pushing the envelope.

Another big item is Title 18 §1466a:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001466---A000-.html

This section is the newest part, and since it manages to abstract "minor" and "real human being" from the segment of obscenity law, imo it is pretty important to take a look at also.  Probably it would have made more sense if I'd cited this piece first, sorry.  Most specifically:

> Quote - (c) Nonrequired Element of Offense.— It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

Hmmm - that one is pretty clear. Cites cartoons, drawings, whatever.

Yeah, I apologize for any confusion I may have brought in, I probably should have pointed to that chunk of law first.

A practical question... are there things that can be done to a Poser figure to make sure that it can not be perceived as representing a minor? I used to use large breasts and plentiful pubic hair for my artistic nudes but I suppose in the United States only minor females have pubic hair these days! I have found myself forced to render female characters of virtual age 55 to 90 for nudes out of prudence in regards to these issues... are there ways to make a female figure clearly a virtual 20 or 25 say? I notice in commercials for KY lotion on TV the characters brandish wedding rings... would that help? Are there matters of morphology that would anchor a figure clearly in the 20 something age?

It falls under the "reasonable person" definition - there is likely no guaranteed hallmark you're going to be able to stick on a character to make them appear young, but definitely over 18.  For people who like to skate on that edge, well, some of them may fall off.  It's up to the old committee of twelve schmoes if a particular example goes to court.

I used to think tattoos along with body hair would do the job but my understanding is that minors actually have tattoos now... that fully one third of American's have tattoos and that parents are getting their kids tattoos, piercings, and even brazilian waxes now!

Tattooing in America is still reserved for adults over 18 years of age,  That also applies to piercing excluding the ears.

Actually, you can be under 18 in some states with parental consent.
www.micropigmentation.org/updates/legal.php 

No word on age limits for tweens getting Brazilians. Pageing Miley Cyrus.

@RealDeal:

Just my opinion, as someone who plows through the galleries at Renderotica on a regular basis as a part of his duties...

It's pretty simple: If it looks like a kid, don't do it. If it looks old enough to easily pass as 18, go for it. The FAQ @ R'otica is simple and straightforward about such things (I'd link to it, but given the Prude Patrol's pusillanimous proclivities pertaining to piles of porn, it's prolly better if I just reposted it verbatim):

First up, we do NOT tolerate anyone pushing paedophilia. We simply have no tolerance for depictions that can appear to be that of children in a sexual situation. Yes, we know that the US Supreme Court has ruled somewhat recently about 3D/CG depictions of even outright child porn, and that the ruling says that at this time it is not really actionable under the law. We simply don't care - we won't allow it. We're pricks like that. When it comes to Lolitas, Poppets, and anything pre-pubescent? We don't want it, we don't appreciate it, and we will delete any instance that we find of it. Don't like it? Go open your own website that specializes in such subject matters, and you deal with the fallout.

Subjective as Hell, ain't it? But - it is simple. If it looks like a kid, it doesn't stay. Don't like it? Go open your own website and post 'em all you want there. The only real differentiator is, we actually use our heads and don't over-react.

...and that leaves us to your situation - just use your head. If the characters look like kids, either grow 'em into adults or don't do it. Nobody is twisting your arm to make the animation.

/P

Quote - A practical question... are there things that can be done to a Poser figure to make sure that it can not be perceived as representing a minor? I used to use large breasts and plentiful pubic hair for my artistic nudes but I suppose in the United States only minor females have pubic hair these days! I have found myself forced to render female characters of virtual age 55 to 90 for nudes out of prudence in regards to these issues... are there ways to make a female figure clearly a virtual 20 or 25 say? I notice in commercials for KY lotion on TV the characters brandish wedding rings... would that help? Are there matters of morphology that would anchor a figure clearly in the 20 something age?

If it looks like a child, it's a child.  If there is some doubt then you had best put in secondary clues in the composition that can be clearly interpreted and which leads to viewer to immediately assume the character is an adult.  There should be no hesitation in making that assumption if you wish to do what's right.

If you still can't figure it out by then, you're doing it wrong.  There is a huge difference between a young minor and an adult.  That should be very clear.  There is somewhat less of a difference as age progresses to adulthood.  HOWEVER, if you're skirting around depicting "Just turned 18" types of figures, you should probably back off.

One thing you can probably do is spin the voluptuous dials, give the breasts a bit of fullness and gravity effects, make sure the hips are wide enough and make sure the limbs are not too long.  Then, email it to an attorney and ask them. :)

Creator beware.

Just want to make one thing perfectly clear:
I had absolutely no thoughts, whatsoever, of making anything that could be labeled "child porn" by a reasonable adult. No Milkids, no Laura. I was not asked to do so, either.

I brought up the question in the first place because after looking at 2 of the suggested characters, I thought "she looks to me to be about 17".
None of the poser figures I was asked to use could be mistaken for a "child"; large breasts, curvy & developed figures. Obviously Virtually Mature Characters, capable of making virtual decisions, and joining the Virtual Military.
BUT. I have a 16 year old daughter. she gets mistaken for a college-age student on a frequent basis. Her mom had problems getting in to clubs until she hit about 30, because they thought she was using a fake ID, she still looks about 25.  my daughters best friend is 17, and could pass for 13., MAYBE 15 when she is wearing makeup.
With a real, live female you can check ID's; with a Virtual character, it is up to the person looking's judgement. The point being, unless the character is OBVIOUSLY at least 25 or so, you could potentially be in trouble.
My anonymous friend did have a lawyer look in to this; under current US law, NO Virtual image is illegal, unless you represent the image as being of "real" people, or it is judged to be "obscene" (which, by the way, brings up the question: how can Child Pornography NOT be obscene?). So, technically, it would be as "legal" to do this as any other Porn, but in reality it would be more risky as you can't prove the age of your Virtual Actors.
I could see a Outraged anti-porn crusader going to renderotica and pointing out a few of the "not obviously 25+" pictures and claiming they are obscene images of a Virtual 17 year old; as there is no birth certificate, the validity of the charge would be totally and completely up to the judge and/or jury, wouldn't it? THAT is where I keep hitting the cognitive dissonance, THAT is where I keep thinking to myself "this is really, really messed up".

Quote -
I could see a Outraged anti-porn crusader going to renderotica and pointing out a few of the "not obviously 25+" pictures and claiming they are obscene images of a Virtual 17 year old; as there is no birth certificate, the validity of the charge would be totally and completely up to the judge and/or jury, wouldn't it?

Yep.

We take reasonable steps to insure that nothing in there looks like paedophilia, and that's more than most 3d sites handling pr0n do from the looks of things. After that, well...? If you constantly lived in fear of traffic accidents to the point where you never go anywhere, what kind of life would you have? There comes a point where you just have to look at the outraged crusader types and give 'em a big fat "Fuck You!" when they threaten to impose themselves. Renderotica has managed to do that for roughly 10 years now.

Otherwise they simply dominate you, and you grant them power by giving in. See also the galleries here (where PayPal dictated the TOS, and not the PTB).

It's all up to you.

/P

there are factions at several of these poser gallery sites who believe falsely that aiko3 in particular,
and anime characters in general, are "too young".  that's one of the reasons I quit doing
porno, as anime isn't well-accepted outside japan.  hard-core porno advocates could just
laff them off and abuse them, telling 'em to fuck off, because the U.S. supreme court
had ruled that kiddie porn using computer-generated models was not illegal, but recent
rulings in the anglo-saxon countries have reversed that trend, and it's now illegal in most
of them. it doesn't require any testicular fortitude to tell a bunch of prudes on a porno site to
fuck off, as they've got no business there in the first place, but try telling that to a copper who
just seized one's computer full of what he considers to be computer-generated kiddie porn.

Didn't some guy in Australia just get convicted of child porn for a sexual drawing of the para-human cartoon character Bart Simpson? A guy in Canada was prosecuted for a fiction story he emailed someone but did not 'publish' but I don't know how that turned out. What I find puzzling about the US and Canada is that in several jurisdictions it is entirely legal for an adult to have sex with a real fourteen year old and go to jail for a nude non-sexual depiction of a non-existent seventeen year old... I am also confused by jurisdictions where prostitution is illegal unless it is being filmed in which case it becomes legal pornography!

Thorne at Faeriewylde had this problem for some time. He finally was forced to buckle under those same crusaders and changed his TOS. You might want to talk to him. He is really cool about this.

It really pisses me off reading all this stuff because it reminds me of the stupid closed minded intolerance going on around the world. One person on a site complains and the site feels compelled to comply. The few always seem to affect the lives of the many it seems and that sucks!

But in the final analysis it comes down to this for me:
I have been creating Erotic for a VERY LONG TIME. My first drawings as a kid were erotic and all ideas bouncing around in my head deal with similar subject matter. It bothers me to no end not being able to showcase that work anywhere and the possible sites for said showcases are dwindling. A site that deals with Erotica should be open to display ALL areas of erotica or it short changes its objective to act as a forum for it.

Ultimately, I will create whatever I want and just not bother showing it anywhere any more. In fact since Renderosity and DAZ and many other sites got so picky I just stopped posting work there, PERIOD. Of late It just isn't that important to me getting someone's commenting how dirty it is or how great it is anymore. If I can't get intelligent critique there is no point in getting any commentary at all. If I am not making money I don't care anymore. I just do it for me anyway or the select few that want my work for whatever reason.

As much as I deplore the abuse of children I just can't subscribe to the notion that a digitally created image, or one drawn in graphite or air brushed, or created in plasticine should fall into the same pernicious criticism  or censorship or prosecution as an image created with live subjects. Just not the same to me. Reminds me of the days where a sign was pinned below an image of a bleeding dog where the artists would state that no animals were injured in the creation of that image!

I can almost see this censorship  in erotic situations but it has gone beyond that.
Depicting an under age character say in a group of other same gender figures of all ages, like say a group portrait in a nudist colony, where no touching or other perceived sexuality is hinted at, on some sites is illegal while not long ago it was accepted as art form. Go figure.
It doesn't have to be child imagery that gets the Puritans all hot and bothered either it seems. Signs of sexual arousal in male or female, depicting fluids of any kind or the sexual act is illegal on many sites irregardless if it under aged or not. Even casual touching if the bodies are nude, no matter how vanilla it seems to many is now considered verboten on many sites.

The adult view:
When you want to post images on other peoples sites you gotta conform to their rules irregardless of who dictates those guidelines for them. I hate this whole Puritan Ethic going on and about and from what is apparent it seems to have spread to Europe and other parts of the world where there once was more freedom on all this.  Think of it this way: when you visit someones' home you don't just do what you want or you will never be invited back. No different. Read the TOS and conform. Frustrating that any one can define GOOD TASTE or ACCEPTABLE Subject matter but that is life in this new age of intolerance.

As far as creating these pieces for a web site, there are still ISPs that offer such fare in Russia and Denmark. Looking around will pay off if this is what your friend wants to do. Talk to the Webmaster there and to your attorney about going overseas with this and also ways of disguising your involvement and definitely don't sign the work!  Good luck!

Quote - Thorne at Faeriewylde had this problem for some time. He finally was forced to buckle under those same crusaders and changed his TOS. You might want to talk to him. He is really cool about this.

As I recall there were two sides to that, and part of the problem was a few chronic hardheads who simply would not follow his rules and insisted on posting stuff he found offensive.

Britney Spears just had to release a radio edit version of her new song "If U Seek Amy" with that phrase redone as "If you /see/ Amy" :)

Quote - > Quote - Thorne at Faeriewylde had this problem for some time. He finally was forced to buckle under those same crusaders and changed his TOS. You might want to talk to him. He is really cool about this.

As I recall there were two sides to that, and part of the problem was a few chronic hardheads who simply would not follow his rules and insisted on posting stuff he found offensive.

And he changed the rules of posting across the board because of the few. It figures. Of course he had every right to do so and I don't blame him. But another example of how the few mess things up for the many! Thanks for the details on this!  :)

Don't trust me completely on that, I may not remember correctly, I just have a memory of him posting a comment to that effect either here or at Faeriewylde forums.  Thorne is indeed a good person and I'm sure if someone wants advice from him he'd be happy to offer it.

I've always been afraid to visit Thorne's fairy site thinking it might not conform to local community standards... maybe I should go have a look.

It has always been very tame stuff as far as I've ever seen, Thorne has always gone far out of his way to try to get rid of the outright pornography that other people bring in.

Quote - it doesn't require any testicular fortitude to tell a bunch of prudes on a porno site to
fuck off, as they've got no business there in the first place, but try telling that to a copper who
just seized one's computer full of what he considers to be computer-generated kiddie porn.

Yes and no, and it depends on why the "copper" is grabbing your computer.

More often than not, computers are seized as part of investigating actual crimes (that is, they don't go trolling websites and hunting down artists, as the current hysteria would have it). Folks who have come up against the wrong end of these cases had a metric shitload of real (photographic) child porn on their machinery, which leaves the chump no room at all for disputing the nature of the animated/fake/CG/drawn/whatever porn.

OTOH, until/unless a jury is presented with someone who only has the CG variety of 'maybe' images, we don't/won't know how it would turn out, and prosecutors are smart enough to know that taking stabs in the dark would get them nailed just as hard as the defendant they're trying to nail on just that basis.

(and as a Nota Bene, in the case of some prosecutors like Eliot Spitzer, it comes back to bite 'em in the ass even harder than they could have estimated... google his name sometime ;) ).

As for whether or not someone should be there? Hey - we've seen our fair share of zealots (not like they lasted very long, but...) Also, you don't include the condition of someone building their own website with mixed media subject matter, eh? :)

There is one type of person that IIRC we do give consideration to: If a content creator is repulsed at what someone has done with their sold creations, they can show up and complain all they want to... and have every right to do so. Whether they'll be listened to or not depends on the nature of the argument, as well as actual licensing issues and conditions at the store and for the product(s) sold.

--

Quote - Thorne at Faeriewylde had this problem for some time. He finally was forced to buckle under those same crusaders and changed his TOS. You might want to talk to him. He is really cool about this.

Different story - Thorne's deal was (as PJ mentioned) that there were too many dumbasses who were posting improper (for his site's TOS) material and refused to stop doing so. He didn't feel like dealing with the headaches, so he modified this TOS to not deal with it. OTOH, the man held out for 7 years before it got to that point, so it's not like he buckled under at the slightest touch.

Speakin' of which, @ momodot: Trust me - it'd conform to even the most tightest of Bible Belt notches...

Quote - When you want to post images on other peoples sites you gotta conform to their rules irregardless of who dictates those guidelines for them.

Agreed. We follow the same ethic - if we won't accept it (and it has to really cross the line), then go open your own website or find one who will accommodate you. OTOH, we set our own rules and keep to them. I wrote the part about PayPal and Renderosity because there was discussion about how RO was all big on enforcing their standards, when in fact those standards were set for them by another private entity (as opposed to by law, which is a whole different bucket of fish altogether). Nothing wrong with that per se, but it's far more accurate and honest (and complete) to detail how that came about.

I prefer mature full-figured women and BBWs but censorship sucks so here's my advice:

Add fairy wings or something else that would make the characters "non-human" and thus not subject to the laws. Fantasy creatures are not governed by child pornography laws. If they're not human, it cannot be classified as child pornography because they don't exist in reality. Centaurs, fairies, nymphs, etc. will be ignored by the authorities and if anyone tries to give you any trouble you have a strong argument in your favor. It's doubtful that anyone would try to censor images featuring fantasy creatures.

The other option is to give them certain traits that would suggest that they're over 18 without changing their overall appearance. Piercings in strategic locations, smoking cigarettes/cigars or other activities that children don't/can't do. Appearance or portrayal alone isn't good enough for the authorities to prosecute. If it were, producers of pornography featuring actresses like Little Lupe or Sugar Baby would have been prosecuted long ago.

And include a disclaimer about the age of those being portrayed, to the effect of something like this (taken from an adult DVD site):

"The use of word teens, teen or young on this website refers to models who are over the age of 18 years old. The manufactures who have porn DVDs for sale on this website, state directly on their products, that all actors/models depicted in their porn videos are over the age of 18 and that a record of proof is on file. We carry porn movies directly from the manufacture. The records required by Section 2257 of Title 18 of the United States Code with respect to visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct are kept by film studio manufactures' custodian of records."

Obviously, there are no records to be kept by you, but if you emphasize that they characters are not supposed to be under 18, you should be in the clear.

If it looks like a kid, even a kid with fairy wings, then many people will consider it a kid and you're skirting some dangerous laws, not to mention a lot of popular opinion.  Tacking some trivial detail on and saying "but it has fox ears, obviously not human!" does not matter all that much. 

Quote - Appearance or portrayal alone isn't good enough for the authorities to prosecute.

You're mistaken.  Not only are people in prison for breaking the law I mentioned earlier, the first guy convicted under it already had his appeal get crushed:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20090105/ai_n31173798

Next batter up is Christopher Handley:
http://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/iasd/opinions.nsf/55fa4cbb8063b06c862568620076059d/20a96a77c04347ed86257480006ae8c5/$FILE/Handley.pdf

I guess i was curious if people ever render Thorne-Sarsa V3 figures nude... or some of the stranger figures like Wapi Pu or Sadie 19? I think TheGIRL and A3Toon are pretty safe but I am confused by some of the big head Toon characters that look like kids to me although they have developed breasts and hips... some of the real anime head figures... I can't think of the names... maybe like ChiBel or BelBel or something... those look like kids to me despite the big breasts while I have had to becareful about V2 and V3 figures if they don't have big enough breasts or narrow enough hips. I rely a lot on PearShape to age female figures and TorsoHeavy to age male.

Well, I suppose the best thing to do would be to just morph the characters so that they aren't completely flat-chested and lacking hips. In other words, don't make them look prepubescent. They don't have to have D-cups and child-bearing hips or anything, but just not obviously children. If they do need to have small breasts and narrow hips, just make them taller.

Quote -
You're mistaken.  Not only are people in prison for breaking the law I mentioned earlier, the first guy convicted under it already had his appeal get crushed:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20090105/ai_n31173798

Next batter up is Christopher Handley:
http://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/iasd/opinions.nsf/55fa4cbb8063b06c862568620076059d/20a96a77c04347ed86257480006ae8c5/$FILE/Handley.pdf

I'm pretty sure the 1st one has as it's keyword "obscene"; if you fail the Miller test, you are screwed no matter what the subject matter.
I can't open the 2nd.

Quote - > Quote -

You're mistaken.  Not only are people in prison for breaking the law I mentioned earlier, the first guy convicted under it already had his appeal get crushed:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20090105/ai_n31173798

Next batter up is Christopher Handley:
http://www.iasd.uscourts.gov/iasd/opinions.nsf/55fa4cbb8063b06c862568620076059d/20a96a77c04347ed86257480006ae8c5/$FILE/Handley.pdf

I'm pretty sure the 1st one has as it's keyword "obscene"; if you fail the Miller test, you are screwed no matter what the subject matter.
I can't open the 2nd.

Via the magic of Google, you can view it as an HTML file.

Yep, according to this analysis, it was - technically at least - an obscenity conviction.
cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2008/12/cartoons-again.html 

Whorley hit the trifecta, using a state owned computer, (apparently) having a prior conviction, and being too poor to afford a paid lawyer. A prime candidate for a legal Darwin award.

Quote -
Add fairy wings or something else that would make the characters "non-human" and thus not subject to the laws.

Seriously? I wouldn't try that one. If it's obviously pre-pubescent in appearance, it better not be having sex, no matter what it looks like. We won't let anything like that in, and I doubt anyone else would, either. This is the 'using your head' part I was talking about earlier.

--

Not so sure Whorley would be something of a standard... if you're using public (read "gov't") property for anything sexual in depiction (nevermind the "age" of the participants), it is open to inspection, search and seizure at any time - without a warrant or so much as a warning. That changes the whole dynamic. Dunno about the other one, but I suspect that it's in connection with the investigation of another/related crime.

/P