This fall, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear arguments on the case, captioned Ashrolf v. Free Speech Coalition, which will determine the legitimacy of a provision of the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996 which criminalizes the possession or distribution of so-called virtual child pornography. The appeal of the Department of Justice stems from a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling wherein the Court struck down the provision for being unconstitutionally vague and over broad. The CPPA defines child pornography as a visual depiction that appears to be or conveys the impression of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Therefore, the law not only forbids obscene material with adults portraying minors, but also outlaws the production, possession or distribution of computer-generated images that appear to portray minors. Traditionally, courts have upheld such child pornography laws under the rationale that they are preventing harm to real children. Opponents of the provision do not discount the necessity of a law designed to protect children from sexual predators. However, they argue that the provision of the act reaches beyond its underlying rationale to protect children since the material sought to be regulated doesnt directly involve children. The government, however, posits that harm to children from child pornography is not limited to use of live children in sexual explicit material and suggests that secondary effects of virtual child porn constitute a direct threat to child welfare. For instance, proponents argue that fictional portrayals of elicit sexual activity encourages further activity by enticing pedophiles to stalk and molest children and are used to lure children into sexual conduct. Because the provision is an allegedly threat to a fundamental right (1st Amendment freedom of speech) the Court will likely review it with the strictest of scrutiny for government actions. In order for the provision to survive strict scrutiny examination, the Court must find that the law is the required means necessary to achieve the compelling state interest of child welfare. This is an onerous standard for the government to overcome. In any event, the impact of a Supreme Court ruling will be significant, especially for creators of digital works and particularly to users of the Poser line of software produced by Curious Arts, which has the capacity to easily create digital images of children and adults. Currently, the law provides for up to 15 years imprisonment for the possession of more than three images of child pornography, and 30 years for defendants with previous child-porn or sex-abuse convictions.

You know, I'm no big supporter of child porn. I find it and its users to be among society's more disgusting creations. But this law worries me. A lot. On an AOL board, we were discussing something similar to this: in Canada last year, the courts decided that possession of child pornography was not ipso facto a crime, although the creation and distribution was. Naturally, a lot of people were really upset by this decision, and rightfully so, I suppose. But that got me to wondering: if we're talking about ownership of something that portrays an illegal act as being a crime itself, then how many of us would still be able to keep those videos and DVDs of action movies, where the portrayal of a murder is taking place? Is that so different from what's being talked about in the initial post here? How about sites like "renderotica", where the portrayal of extreme s/m is being presented -- it wouldn't be difficult to describe those as assault with bodily harm, so does that make them illegal as well?

This just gets worse and worse. I'm agreeing with "atthisstage" again. I can think of few arguments more spurious than "proponents argue that fictional portrayals of elicit sexual activity encourages further activity by enticing pedophiles to stalk and molest children". Why should "fictional portrayals" of this particular topic be any different from fictional portrayals of any other illegal or immoral act. Since childhood, I have been bombarded by fictional portrayals of the most henious acts. I have seen John Wayne kill hundreds of Native Americans, and had (as a child) been given the instruments of performing such actions in play, but have never felt that this "encouraged" me to perform such acts in real life as an adult. I have felt no "encouragement" from seeing Elmur Fudd blow Daffy Duck's face off with a shotgun, several times in a 3 minute period, nor from watching the coyote attempt to crush the roadrunner with boulders and anvils. From my teen years, I've seen realistic movie portrails of organized crime, disorganized crime, psycopathinc crime against people, animals, property, and sometimes the whole world, and I have never felt "encouraged" to do any of this. So, to accept these "encouragement" arguments is to accept the censorship of all literature that does not depict the living of healthy, virtuous lives. And we've seen what happens when a government tries such restriction. Things like students, tanks, and Tiennemen square.

I don't think anyone has any business using child models in porn and I hope the government squashes them like the roaches they are. You can define art and free speech all you want, but it is not acceptable to use children or the representives of children in this manner. You can flame me if you like, won't bother me a bit. If I see ANY type of child porn, Poser children or otherwise, I will be reporting it. And since one web owner in Texas just got life in prison for running their site for child porn, I guess there must be a few out there who agree. Marque

Some of the most vivid portrayals of sex and/or violence, including images where children are victimized, come from nations with extremely low crime rates and strong family values, to wit: Japan. Denmark had the reputation of the most liberal of porn movies and videos for a long time. The Netherlands, in particular, Amsterdam has legendary openess with portrayals of sex. The most repressive of nations on the planet today also take the lead in suppression of portrayals of sex. It seems obvious that, at the societal level, the portrayal of violence and/sex (including kiddie porn) has no effect on public mores, And at best, such portrayal is inversely related to child abuse, violence and distonic family values. At the individual level, the availability of ways to work out sexual and/or violent urges by way of fantasy is essential to the control, reduction, and elimination of actions detrimental to society. The mind gets the same bang from an imagined experience as a real one, and without the adverse physical side effects. In the US, one out of every three women and one of five boys experience sexual abuse in childhood, according to a number of estimates. That's horrific! Given the prevalence of the problem, just who do you suppose is adamant on repressing the visual evidence of it's existence? The continued repression of the Freedom of Expression in this case is about the same as trying to put out a fire with gasoline!

Gordon

You know, some of the fairy art I've seen here and in other forums can come very close to being classified as child porn, especially when you have nude fairy characters with very child-like features, depending on your tolerance level. Some artists put small breasts or traces of pubic hair on them, but those with low tolerance for nudity can argue that these really depict underage teens under the guise of fairies.

Along these lines... how do you all feel about breast morphs and genital morphs already being distributed for the Mille Girls? Y'all can't tell me that's NOT for the sick pleasure of some sick individual?

L'ultima fòrza è nella morte.

I was abused as a child and I will tell you that this copout of "oh it happened to me and that's why I do it" is crap. I know many people male and female who have been abused and not one of us is at all interested in visiting that pain and abuse on another person. Knowing what it is like first hand I can't imagine doing that to someone else. I stand by my statement that it is NOT art in any way shape or form and I will continue to report any and all child porn that I see. Marque

The fury of the abused against any and all representation of child abuse is clearly well founded and easy to sympathize with. So it is with fury against any crime of violence ... a child abuse is a crime of violence. It isn't sexual abuse of a child that is the focus of the laws in this matter, it is the CAMERA ANGLE used to portray it. There are numerous examples of major motion pictures that "depict" sexual activity of persons under the legal age ... they just don't show Tab A being inserted in Slot B. The penalty for the right camera angle can be an Oscar, and the wrong camera angle ... 15 years in the slammer! It is arbitrary, capricious, cruel and unusual punishment ...as well as counter productive on the real problem .... child abuse in the real world.

Gordon

Ah hem....Okay...2 out of 3 of my daughters did the child "pageant" circle, back home in California. (The baby only lasted 3 years...her older sister went on throughout her teen years, and is finishing up college with a complete "dance" scholarship.) You want to talk kiddie porn....hah...The lil mis teeny contestants are all decked out in glitter and makeup, with helmet sprayed hairdoes. And, I have seen so many of them get smacked by their parents, for not winning that contest's trophy. And, we aren't talking an occasional pageant, here. There were pageants just about every weekend. Oh, and to make your lil girl look like a lil hoochie...shoot...I was paying about $100 per costume...AND, THEN...there was the "formal" wear to purchase. Sex sells. And, sex sells some kids on being "sexy". The only reason that I went along with that whole pageant circuit thing was: MY MIDDLE DAUGHTER LOVED IT. It was her "life". Being Teen Miss Santa Clara was such a high point for her. Her little sister, I might add...dropped out and went into sports. That was cool. I got my ex to take the middle one to the pageants, since he had no money, and didn't buy all the crap...and, I went to Little League and Soccer with the baby. The pageants depressed me terribly. Have any of you ever attended one?

Irrespective of your feelings on the matter, you might heed the original posters advice. ...sounds evenhanded-handeded, although there is no mention of 'lascivious display' or recent cases that suggest that nobody has to see the offending material. I don't know how you feel about all-caps user-names, but the single-picture gallery (empty contact and info pages) and front-loading in the Rendoerosity gallery suggest this is an LEA announcing it's presence on the forum. Until HARBINGER-3D revisits the thread I would consider it a troll. And this in a world where people are being beaten and shot down in the streets.

You know...I was wondering what the source of this alleged article was. Thank you, now I don't feel like I am a paranoid.

No Poppi, but I have seen them while cruising the channels and I can see what you mean about depressing. My daughter never got into that, she was a tomboy. Good thing too, I couldn't have afforded the costumes. I have to agree with Imacken, I think the person who started this thread just came in to stir us up. Marque

The person who started the thread is a moderator here - of the Copyright Laws forum. It's a not a troll - it's a heads up.

I do too. It is the yearly anniversary of some very bad Renderosity trolls. LOL...But, I did read a bunch of R'osity history the other day, when takin' a break...'Tis the season. Shoot....they get me, too, cause I am somewhat gullible.

PJ...Could he/she please cite the article that the post was based on. Thanks, Poppi

Methinks you're asking the wrong person. ;-) Try an 'instant message' thingie to HARBINGER-3D (click on the name in the post header).

Poppi, I normally prefer the term "naive". It's an old word, but carries a connotation of "innocence". The carnival slang "gullible" (modern slang, you won't even find it in most dictionaries) has unplesent connotations of being an easy mark, a rube, as it were. Wiz Wiz Wizzzzzzzz! Joe

I'm behind the store on this one. All it would take is one slur and they could be shut down lock stock and barrel. People are trying to make a point here that the pictures don't matter, when in fact they do. You must realize that the protection of children overides anything you will ever render. Somewhere we have to make a stand against using children in any manner that may cause harm. I commend anyone who takes even the smallest step to initiate that protection. Marque

Excuse me for barging in here, but I have a question or two. Can I post a pic of a young teen in a string bikini striking a "come-hither" pose? Can her nipples be perking the fabric of the bikini? Can her bottom depict the hint of "camel toes" through the fabric? How much butcheek can be shown? Sometimes, skimpy clothing can be much, much more arousing then nudity. After all, it's so often a wonderbra that provides us with wonderful cleavage and some ungodly tight shorts that gives the ass some fine shape. Thigh-high stockings really accentuate the legs in a way that makes me loopy. You get the idea. I am getting some ideas for some very, very hot depictions of clothed young teens. (Anyone remember those Calvin Klein ads from a few years back?) -WTB

The protection of children is a notable and natural emotion. Any propagandist worth his or her salt knows that this perfectly natural desire is readily bent to the purposes of social control, regardless of relevance to the actual issue of protecting children: Socrates was forced to drink a cup of hemlock "to protect the youth" of Athens. The Nazis condemned the whole of modern art, particularly Jewish, for being "degenerate". The extermination of social "undesirables" in the Third Reich was "justified" as necessary for the protection of European children and culture. Various communist regimes have similiarly outlawed "obscene"art and imprisoned the artists responsible .. all in the name of decency. While I personally find a great deal of what is called "art" ridiculous, revolting, and unworthy of use other than lining a garbage can, ... I am thoroughly frightened of those who would use the power of the state to repress that which I, or anyone else,do not like. The anger expressed by Marque is a normal reaction to one who has experienced abuse as a child, and is the most destructive lasting aspect of child abuse. The rage he expresses in minor compared to the rage seen in the eyes of the mug shots of those on Death Row. That rage, in it's extreme, has been acted out by Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Joseph Goebbels, Joseph Stalin, et al. That rage is also portrayed in the violent art seen on other Poser sites .. and is a visual expression of the rage felt by many artists of abuse they have experienced or have picked up as family tradition. I expect that the majority of so-called "erotic" art is, in reality "rage" art ... traceable to child abuse. But the new law doesn't proscribe "rage'art. Keep in mind the fact that there are people collecting your names from this site and other Poser sites to turn over to the Feds .... and it makes no difference how clever you think you are ... they are out to put you away.

Gordon

First of all I am a female, and I do not feel rage over what happened, just the desire to protect others from the same fate. If anything I feel sad that this even has to be addressed. Isn't it odd that only the artist's seem to have rights? If someone speaks up and states the opinion that they are against these pictures they are called a prude, Nazi, whatever. Look at what has been written here today. I see a lot of words from people trying to justify "art" at the expense of the innocence they claim they are trying to protect. Marque

Oh wow. Well Marque... did I ever tell you that you are the gutsiest woman I have ever met? There is a special place in heaven for you my best of friends, in another age you would have been called Jeannie de Arc, Bonny Parker, Gwyhnhwyvar, or perhaps just be thought to be a Valkyrie. Hrm... this is a difficult and emotionally charged topic for all. Most here do not wish to think their art could in time be censored, and fear this is the beginning of that movement, and so are reacting in fear. Some here, such as Marque, and I must say, myself, see this as a natural moral stance to take. If these new rules prevent even one person from suffering or help prevent those who have already been victimized from having a flashback by accidently running across an image that brings about a trauma reaction, then I am all for it. I have no personal need to express myself artistically through the nudity of the very young.

Go to the ACLU website and join. Let your Rep. and Sen. know what you think !

The repression of art portraying child abuse will not protect children, it endangers them. The repression of art portraying child abuse hides the problem when it needs to be understood. It is a huge problem affecting one third of all women and one fifth of all boys. The pedofile's need to abuse children is derived from his/her own childhood. It is passed on from generation to generation. And this doesn't even touch the subject of the repression of the freedom of expression which is another subject with different consequences.

Gordon

And the time will come when those on the far right decide (believe) that any form of nudity whatsoever (any age) is the work of evil and ultimately all nudity depicted in art in all museums around the world is torn down and destroyed. And after that there will come a time when a womans feet in a "revealing" shoe will be considered too erotic and sexually stimulating by those on the far right and being in power at the time they will ban all of the revealing footwear. Athletes foot will increase dramatically. And then will come the time that shorts on children will be deemed too intoxicating to the weak-minded of society so it is decided it would best be served if all shorts are removed from store shelves - where of course now only black, gray and white clothing resides anyway. Ultimately there will only be one type of clothing - unisex where no bumps or bulges show AT ALL because to show anything concerning the actual human body will be considered way too lascivious. I think space suits will work. ***************************** Everything is in the eye of the beholder. What is lascivious and sexually exciting to you may not be at all to me - and vice-versa! We all must remember that we really don't live in a totally free country. We sacrifice many freedoms for safety, protection and security. Wouldn't it be nice to NOT have to lock your front door when you go to work? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to leave your keys in the car knowing that it will still be there when you get back? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to create art without having to worry about if it meets certain guidelines and whether or not you could go to jail? There is alot to think about. But how far will we go? If one of you thinks that simply a naked (Poser) teenager is lascivious and should be banned - then what next? You can't protect all children. That's what parents are for. They educate their children to the best of their abilities. We are (for the most part?) adults here. Can't we decide for ourselves? Just another two cents.

Attached Link: http://faerieguild.com

Just thought I would put my two coppers in here, mainly because I didn't like what I saw in some of the posts above. First off I am a mother of a beautiful 1 year old boy, and as a mother it makes me sick to hear or see someone who advocates it. However I am not against nudity. It's totally natural to be nude, why do you think you were born that way? If it was wrong to be nude you would have been born with clothes. The real concern I have is that child porn or art in general is subjective. It offends me to hear peoples posts above imply that the people in the Faerie community advocate/make child porn. The Faerie artwork on my site contains mostly nude Faeries. Yes they are thin and yes they have small delicate features (don't all faeries?), that does not make them children/teens. Are we to suppose now that all thin women or flat chested women are children or teens? If you're going to assume that you would also have to assume that men who like thin women are really men that like little children/teens. Here's a quote from this forum: "You know, some of the fairy art I've seen here and in other forums can come very close to being classified as child porn, [snip] really depict underage teens under the guise of fairies." So now we have "underage" poser models, you've got to be kidding. What the above statement says to me is that there are sickos out there that see pictures of slender women and think about teen girls. A side note: the one picture on my website that could be considered a pornographic picture is of a voluptous Vargas-Olivia stlye pin-up. If my Faerie pictures were really just guises for child porn why wouldn't my pin-up be of a "teen".

hmmmf looks like someone with poser has pissed off the government.

Huolong....yes this is a big problem...and something needs to be done about it... but stopping the making of kiddie porn (in 3d or real-life) isn't going to make people forget that it's happening. people know its happening...and allowing it to be made is just fuleing the perverts fantasy, in my opinion. and for u to even say that its repressing the freedom of expression is just crap....i'm sorry but it is.

{{{The pedofile's need to abuse children is derived from his/her own childhood. It is passed on from generation to generation. }}}} I think you should try again. Your statement is total garbage. Not everyone who has been violated as a child becomes a pedophile. I am disgusted by your outlandish claims...your attempt to incite riot so as to gain more credence and impact to your statement is absolute GARBAGE!!! Take this statement from someone who has worked in the 'professional field' for over 15 years. You sir/madam ARE WRONG!!!!

Attached Link: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/ch110.html

currently on the US law Boockes... read, become enlightened or confused as you will. this particular subject is currently in discussion ni a number of countries..

pedofile's should be staked in the city square but when you cant show a naked child in all innocence I think we really have a problem.I think my posts of the evil children playing with knives is more disturbing than naked kids playing, hell I ran around 1/2 naked as did my sister till we were nearly teenagers.As for naked fairies Shee's better burn all them story books . SEIG HEIL

In fact I put it to U Huolong, after having re read several of your statements ...YOU know NOTHING about the impact of paedophelia...aside from your limited readings on the issue. Your attempts at correlating information to substantiate your voiced opinion is nothing more than sensationalism. Your statements are filled with analogies that simply do not exist. Suffice to say..that the majority of what you have said is an insult to those that have and do suffer from this atrocity. An insult to humanity as a whole reflecting on this disgusting lesion of our 'so called human' race. Please refrain from expleting such filth in an attempt to gain more conviction to your bombastic opinions. U do more harm than good to your own credibility. ps. I have been a psychologist for many years...and I DO know what I AM talking about!

Someone mentioned, "but its only pixels on a screen", or something like that, Sounds to me like alittle bit pregnant, it either is or isnt. As far as I think, people who defile and abuse children should be branded and thrown naked into the street. Someone very close to me was abused at a very early age and half a century later, has still not got over it.

Wow, all this controversy over some binary code - how utterly sad that we are all discussing the state of some electronic signals that we have manipulated, and made skins for. Naked is not porn, giving my 1 year old son a bath is not stimulating to me,( if it is to anyone else then I agree they need help ) I suppose some people think that a child nursing is CP, but I certinally don't.We are all born nude and most of us look much better nude than we do with our ratty shirts and baggy pants falling off our rears. If this was to be passed how many artists ( famous or not ) would then be considered Child Pornographers simply because they drew a nude child or teen in a natural non-lewd setting? - or drew sketches of such? Porn on the other hand - the showing of the actual acts - is disgusting and should be stopped. But, to make all people suffer a penalty because one person in a thousand got offended is rediculous. It sad when we are all so politacally correct that we feel we must bend over backwards so as not to offend even the slightest little bit any person, creature or idea. I wonder when the coaltion for the rights of roaches is going to start protesting Raid commercials?? As for the looks like children or teens thing, come on who wants to render old naked hags?? I've seen some 30 year olds that looked younger than my 7 year old. And fairys?? come on- they are mythical and almost always portrayed as nude females, how can you possibly feel that is CP, did we have some bad experiences with out fairy tale books?? And for that matter how many people have downloaded Thorne's models, and then want to complain about his work, and work derived from his work, thats hypocritical and ungrateful and if I were him I would consider pulling my work from here and giving/selling it on my own site. Seems to me some people out there saw something that made them have a errant thought and they felt guilty for having it and now must wage a holy war against the evils of colored pixils. Faerie Advocate: http://faerieguild.com :)

Just wanted to add that a nude render is not abuse, defilement, or anything else. It's a ( non-pornographic )picture that's all. I guess if you think about it the way some of you are then discovery channel should be banned because somebody may consider it lascivious, not to mention National Geographic magazine, and several NEWSPAPER and TV advertisments I've seen with naked baby rears in them.

Marque. I am all for protecting real children, please understand this. First- I feel that saying naked bodies create crime is the same as making the victim responsible for the crime. When I was raped at the age of 15 it was not because my dress was too tight. Crime is not caused by the corrupting force of nakkedness. Not! I have been a victim of various crimes including the crime of never being touched at all by parents who had suffered this kind of abuse, they took this precaution for my 'safety'. The issue is complicated. I only seek to challenge the idea that my artwork depicting a naked child JUST standing there looking anatomically correct is the same as child pornography. It's not! Also I have never said that renderosity didn't have the right to make this rule, it's a private institution and can make any rule it likes. But anyone who says my art is child pornography is going to get an argument from me.

"Your work is to keep cranking the flywheel that turns the gears that spin the belt in the engine of belief that keeps you and your desk in midair."

Annie Dillard

Attached Link: http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/hmcl.html

I'll add my link to the fray

"Your work is to keep cranking the flywheel that turns the gears that spin the belt in the engine of belief that keeps you and your desk in midair."

Annie Dillard

"come on who wants to render old naked hags" What's wrong with "old naked hags"??? Wheren't we all born naked (as you stated)?? Why is it that only the so-called "perfect" body has the right to be shown naked??

"What's wrong with "old naked hags"??? Wheren't we all born naked (as you stated)?? Why is it that only the so-called "perfect" body has the right to be shown naked??" First off I believe art is about beauty, and so I personally won't be rendering, painting, or drawing, any "old hags" but to each their own. Secondly I was only trying to add some humor to this pixel war. Being abused as a child myself, I realize the seriousness of the whole child abuse subject, but I think you are all straying away from what this is really about. I'm sure that most of your parents probably have nude pictures of you playing in the bathtub when you were children, and I'm sure they have shown it to your friends and loved ones, and I'm also pretty sure that it never crossed their mind that it could be somehow misconstrued as being pornographic. That is one of the many points I'm trying to get across. What I still don't understand is how this topic has turned into being about abuse when I've yet to see any pictures on renderosity, or renderotica that depict ANY sort of lewdness, pornography, or abuse of children. All I'm saying is that if I want to make a texture for a nude child I should be able to do so without going to jail, or having to look over my shoulder for the angry villagers with pitchforks. Also I would like to add that I totally agree with fozzibear for saying "As far as I think, people who defile and abuse children should be branded and thrown naked into the street."

Actually Derty, for a very long time there have been posts made in the Renderotica gallery that are both sadistic, and pornographic, usually featuring Thorne's and Handspan's models, though of course not done by Thorne and Handspan themselves you understand, just using their models :( Quite a little series was done of several of Thorne's very young girls a while back, in a series featuring Davo's Mad Lab model... it was horrific, as well as pornographic. I guess it was lost when the old site went down, and God is just and fair at least in some ways ;) I however am still haunted by those images. I sort of stopped going into the galleries there at that point. By beholding, thou shalt become changed, the Bible says. Better to not have stumbled onto them and looked, for me at least. Even right now, if you visit the galleries of Renderotica tonight, you will find in there many images using Thornes very young models, mostly in sadistic ways, torture that would result in their death if this were real life, always though first in the maiming and torture an assault upon their genital area or between the legs. I think perhaps the reason these laws are being discussed is over things like this. Perhaps some one of our elected lawmakers stumbled into Renderotica and found what I did that time and like to have just died ;)

Just so you know I don't advocate or personally like those kinds of images. I find them disgusting too but again you seem to be straying somewhat. The issue at hand is nudity and not those kinds of images. I think there's a vast difference don't you? Also I think the renderotica gallery has violence and nudity warnings to prevent anyone accidentally stumbling on an image they don't want to see? Like I said I don't spend much time over there so I don't know how it is these days. If you or anyone else wants to talk about these other kinds of images I'll be glad to go into my feelings about that but I don't want anyone blurring what I say about one to apply to the other. Since I'm mentioned in the post I wanted to clarify that.

"Your work is to keep cranking the flywheel that turns the gears that spin the belt in the engine of belief that keeps you and your desk in midair."

Annie Dillard

This will be a fascinating case to watch the Supreme Court handle. They are inclined by remit to regard what comes before them in the disinterested light of the Constitution, and not the harsh, flickering glare of public opinion. At heart, the issue facing them is the same as that facing the rest of us, and especially citizens of the USA who have a firm Constitutional right to freedom of expression. If you support the libertarian notion of freedom of expression, how much will you tolerate the expression of others that you find offensive? Distributing and (deliberately) possessing images portraying actual children being sexually abused can be justifiably argued, in my opinion, to be part of the act of abusing the children, just as standing beside the act of abuse and masturbating (or taking the pictures) might be considered as taking part. The right of personal or collective expression does not extend to the abuse of the rights of others. Images of actual child abuse should be kept as 'scenes of crimes' evidence, and nothing else. A similar scenario is seen with so called 'snuff videos', 'rape videos' and 'torture videos'. Making, distributing and keeping these videos is being party to the crimes of murder, rape and torture, and is not covered by any rights of 'freedom of expression'. Yet as a society we tolerate, are even entertained by, a seemingly endless supply of simulated deaths, rapes, injuries and tortures in our imagery. I've seen various arguments, sometimes sensible, from various sides that such imagery should be restricted to certain times of viewing / ages of audience; but I have never seen anyone outright say that John Wayne should never pretend to shoot people, or that Jodie Foster shouldn't pretend to get raped. Or that people should never make imagery of, or write about, such things. Images of virtual acts of abuse are not the same as images of actual abuse. And this applies to images of virtual sexual activity with virtual children. There isn't really any such thing as 'virtual child pornography', because the word 'child' does not apply - there is no child involved. I don't like imagery of virtual sexual activity with virtual children, and I don't like the people who enjoy making and viewing such imagery. People involved with these things are pathetic, contemptible and detestable, in my view. But they are not dangerous as such, and they are not the same as people who abuse real children. Imagery of virtual sexual activity with virtual children has not harmed any individual in its making, and any arguments about whether such imagery harms society as whole are the same as whether John Wayne and Jodie Foster movies harm society as a whole. In nations that purport to stand for freedom of expression, governments have no place restricting such expression. Shout and scream at the people expressing things that offend you, but be very wary of using government to shut them up. You might find government suddenly breaking down your door over some expression you've made...

I've seen REAL child porn, and turned it over to the FBI and got the fucker arrested. I have never seen anything that could be even remotely considered to be child porn here, at rotica or commune. Certainly I've seen pictures of naked children, but so what? That's NOT child porn. But with Bush in office, the thought police are gonna jump all over anything that even resembles material that might offend the rabid fanatics of the religious right. Bet me, by the time Bush leaves office we will have lost a portion of our rights to free speech, to art, to expression, to life. All caused by a man that cheated his way into office despite knowing he's despised and unwanted by the majority of Americans. Big Brother is a little late, but it finally got here didn't it?

Talent is God's gift to you. Using it is your gift to God.

"In nations that purport to stand for freedom of expression, governments have no place restricting such expression." True, and in a huge way I agree with you that that ideal should remain intact, but (in the case of the U.S.) the Constitution has, penned into it, and agreed upon through it's signing, the ability to have itself amended if need be, and via the proper channels. Ideally speaking, that is.....

I kinda like ol' George. Getting that $300.00 "refund" check was pretty cool.

"...by the time Bush leaves office we will have lost a portion of our rights to free speech, to art, to expression, to life." Well just a little note on that remark, if Gore were in office, we most likely would have lost our right to own a gun. Which right would you rather loose...

Yeah, that 300 buck refund would have been cool except for one thing. Only people that didn't need it got it. Everyone else got letters saying they weren't entitled to shit because they were below the poverty level. I don't own a gun, so I really don't care about gun rights. I do however, care about my freedom of speech and expression.

Talent is God's gift to you. Using it is your gift to God.

"I don't own a gun, so I really don't care about gun rights. I do however, care about my freedom of speech and expression." I don't own a gun either but I would still like to know that if I chose to buy one I could. Even if you don't like grapefruit and had no intention of ever buying grapefruit, qouldn't it scare you to think that someone in the govenrment could all the sudden outlaw it?

Although I normally try to stay away from certain subjects, this one does hit home with me as well. When I was 13 I had to travel by greyhound. I wound up breaking a guys nose because he placed his hand on my groin. My mother for whatever reason saw fit to put me in Ti-Chi cases two times a week for a year when I was 12. My current wife, as well as my first, both were molested as children. My wife now, can't remember most of her childhood. Its sad and its a problem in society today, and actually has been for a long time, just they didnt used to talk about it. (Skeletons in the closet ring a bell?) I also used to volunteer for AOL as a guide. Spent about 9 years wondering the virtual halls of the place. Heck, when I started, it was called Quantum Computer Services. As part of my time there, I spend about of my time in Kids WB, which obviously a place for kids. The crap that was sent to my e-mail made me want to crawl through the wires and go choke someone. (the person/s sending it to me, of course). While I have not spent any time in psychiatric studies, I have been through a Freud book or two. (weird dude, but whats it say about me to have read it?) But the statistic above: The pedofile's need to abuse children is derived from his/her own childhood. It is passed on from generation to generation. And then one reply: I think you should try again. Your statement is total garbage. Not everyone who has been violated as a child becomes a pedophile. And both are right. Popular opinion is that most pedophiles (claim to) have been abused as children. Read Time or People, they print those stats. It does not say that anyone who has been abused will do it and/or repeat it. But this is not a 1 on 1 legacy. One sick person will touch thousands in his lifetime, if not stopped. So far what I see in the thread is that yes, well all against it. This is a good thing. Most agree we should reinstate some type of capital punishment. (Fozzy, et al., + Me. Flog the suckers then put it where the parents can get to them.) Original topic.. 3D / Photo realistic depiction of child abuse and the letter of the law, which per-normal is vague on its definition. (They do this to keep themselves employed I think?!?!) And how it will effect us as artists. I dont think that 90% of us need to worry. By the wording above, I dont see lynch mobs running around. Oh, they may try at first, but what our lawyers will show them is the letter of the law: The CPPA defines child pornography as a visual depiction that appears to be or conveys the impression of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Therefore, the law not only forbids obscene material with adults portraying minors, but also outlaws the production, possession or distribution of computer-generated images that appear to portray minors. How that reads to me: The CPPA (buncha layers), defines cp as: A: visual depiction that appears to be of a minor engaging in .. B: visual depiction that conveys the impression of a minor engaging in .. C: visual depiction (that is) of a minor engaging in Since we can now create images, which will make some people wonder if its real or is it Memorex, we actually do need this to be defined a little more clearly. Thats what this whole thread is about. (IMO) Faeries: for all I know, that 17 yrs old faeries is actually 317! Its a fictional character. I believe most people know that. Or at least, I would HOPE most people know that. (oh yeah, were talking about lawyers). I have never seen anything closely resembling the descriptions above anyway with faeries. Ive yet to see a couple of faeries doggie style over a branch. And if I did, I would backspace and move on. And of course, no offense to lawyers, Im sure there are plenty, which are very nice and loving parents and all around fun to be with. Ive just yet to meet one that wasnt a slime. :)

The doctor says I have way too much blood in my caffeine system.

"Faeries: for all I know, that 17 yrs old faeries is actually 317! Its a fictional character. I believe most people know that. Or at least, I would HOPE most people know that. (oh yeah, were talking about lawyers). I have never seen anything closely resembling the descriptions above anyway with faeries. Ive yet to see a couple of faeries doggie style over a branch. And if I did, I would backspace and move on. " Well someone posted a message that aparently was supposed to remain private suggesting that some of the Faerie artwork on here and on other sites was really cp in disguise. Which in turn offended me since my site has numerous renders of nude faerie's, none of them are in lewd or lascivious as was implied. That's the reason that was brought up. sighs

I understand the reasons for mentioning faeries and it's a valid point. There are those extreme right-wing folks that would try to ban your art due to the fact that the majority of faeries are depicted as young females. Thats part of our wonderful double standard. Sex sells, but its dirty. I watch TV about as often as I wash the car, which is to say, rarely, but when I do, I see commercials with some lady trying to sell makeup or a mini-skirt. And how old is this perfect single lady? About 15 18 on average. 15? Oh damn, you mean I was enticed by some add agency too look longingly at a 15 yrs olds legs? What is an acceptable age? Used to be if you were 16 and NOT married, you were weird. 25 you were an old made. DAMN, lock me up in a retirement home then, Im almost dead. ;) (35 for those who wonder, 82 for those who dont. ;p) Ive seen mention of pubic hair as being a qualifier for age as well. Hmm.. I got mine at 11 12 as I believe most do, but its still a little young in the eyes of current society. So pubies will not protect you with this. But again.. I have never seen anything here at Rosity that would come close to any type of depiction of abuse by the outlined law above. We still have to wait and see which way they ratify it. Then we can scream. ;)

The doctor says I have way too much blood in my caffeine system.

The problem, in its essence, is that our society is really being held hostage by a very tiny group, a small minority of malcontents and half-witted twits who consciously choose (and sorry, but if you're a functional adult in this society, you're making choices, pure and simple) to abuse children out of some half-baked concept of empowerment. Because of these very few, we can't let our children play outside at night. We can't let them walk a couple of blocks to the store by themselves. My fear is we're raising a generation of kids so frightened of the world that the laws we have now are going to seem tame by the time these folks are old enough to start writing their own forms of "social protection". With few exceptions, I don't believe people in Renderosity consciously decide to create lewd pictures of kids -- that's ridiculous. But it's only those few who manage to walk that fine line so well, that all of us are now put in the same category as these slimeballs. And the real bitch is: there's not much we can do about it.

How many of you have daughters? How many of them would like to grow up to model? Dance, sing in MTV videos? I modelled...back in the age of dinosaurs...My first magazine cover pic was on the hood of a car at 14...going on 15..in 8 months. Well, all that led to a college education...I danced....modelled, etc. I have an old fashioned master's degree in Fine and Applied Art. Two of 3 of my own daughters modelled a bit. They hated the "creeps" and got out of it almost as soon as they got into it. The middle one did pageants...she "won" herself a 4 year college education. All of this issue sort of really confuses me. There is a huge difference between the Poserfolk, and, real abused children. It almost seems as if someone in power has taken a personal dislike of the program...Poser. I know there was lately, one really vocefirous person who wanted Thorne banished to the end of all eternity. And, yes...I was abused. I didn't realize it at the time, as I was only about 6. It was my uncle...who was beautiful...told stories, sang songs, and played a really good guitar, by my little kid standards. He committed suicide the next day. That hurt me alot worse than the "abuse". Go figger..some of these issues are emotional, as well.

I posted a picture in the gallery using the preteen girl from DAZ (although I think she's more like a teen - at least the one that I did) and I got a very nasty message from someone about it. I was accused of making her look slutty, etc. I thought long and hard about posting that picture but I guess I didn't think long enough :-( I had posted it on another forum and one of the comments I got was It's an adorable portait you've captured the essence of an almost little girl trying to act so grown up for her picture. I think that was what I was trying to convey but other people seem to think it's a dirty picture! I took a long time to get up enough nerve to post and now I don't know whether I want to ever again. This has really shattered me........ Claire

That's just terrible Claire, your work is always so sweet I can't imagine what would make somone say anything like that. I don't understand people who look at somthing beautiful and innocent and find all this horrible stuff there. It's a bit like Lothlorien. You find what you bring with you.

"Your work is to keep cranking the flywheel that turns the gears that spin the belt in the engine of belief that keeps you and your desk in midair."

Annie Dillard

Claire, you will always run into people who project their own warped thoughts onto others... THEY see lewdness hence everybody must be like them... in their minds! Just ignore it!

L'ultima fòrza è nella morte.

The emotions invested in each of our wish to defend and protect children, and defend and protect our own art, can indeed cause many people to lash out at others in a witchunt mentality. Poppi, you may be right, and I have thought as much myself, that someone in power saw something they did not like, that gave them the creeps, and that someone quite possibly was as US Senator, or Congressman, his or her aid or spouse, or a powerful constituent with alot of pull. As a maker of child models, along with Thorne and Ingrid (Handspan), I have felt the same sense of horror that this mysterious person of power may have felt when I saw innocent creations warped by evil and vile minds of a very few sadistic and demented persons over at Renderotica. Then of course here, we have seen Thorne himself take the blame for what others have done to his child creations. Few of us ever see the personal pain this brings to him, since on the whole he keeps up a jolly front and tries to be quite brave. Earlier, when mentioning his work, and Ingrid's, it was not to be condemnatory of them for making child models. That would be a stupid thing for me to do, since I also make them , and make them right along with Thorne. If I appeared to be condemning them for making the child models, it was not my intent at all. However it IS my intent to bring to light the fact that there ARE some seriously sick people amongst us, who have done some wretched horrifying deeds to their "Poser People" figures... and does it matter that these models are not real? That they have no feelings, and that they did not suffer? I believe it does. Thorne suffered. So has Handspan at times. I suffered when I saw the sort of things done to their works that have on occasion been done to them. And yet, the three of us, and indeed ALL child creators, including Daz, are cognizant of the fact that our creations will be used to evil intent by some perverts amongst us. Should we then cease to create the children and teenagers we create? No, nor have we. Now, a time has come when due to the perverts actions amongst us, laws may come to pass that make it hard on any artist to express our innocent art if it includes nudity of the very young or other questionable material involving the very young. Should that stop us from creating art altogether? Again, no. I will still create art. I do not like to be told within what limits I may create it, and yet to not create would wither my soul. Perhaps it is easier for me since I have no personal dream of doing cherubs, or other nude works for the most part of the very young. I would encourage each person however to follow the laws, even if we do not like them. Follow the rules, even if we do not like them. If there is blame to be placed, anger to feel, feel the anger at the few perverts among us, the real perverts out there, who did the art that now we will all pay the price for.

Thanks, Mehndi. I don't like to feel like I am paranoid. However, the uproar over Thorne's "preteen" was so very recent, I could not help but to put 2 and 2 together. Actually, a few in my gallery are not all that old, to be honest. I was trying to portray a time in history, when one did not have to be over 18 to influence how our world would shape up. And, it is a sad thing, indeed when we are prohibited by a whimsical government, to portray, accurately...history.

See it this way: If we think it's okay to say it's only "a pixel", not real, if we become hardened to see children abused on the screen, don't we eventually become hardened when it happens in real life? Why should it upset me less to see it in cartoon form? I can't stop people from creating pictures like that, but does it have to be posted publicly in the name of artistic freedom??? It would be equally stupid to blame the designers of these dolls for any pc done with their creations! I can kill you with a cleaver... would you sue the factory that makes it? Absurd. It's all easier said then done, granted. Who is to decide where the line is? Should and could we forbid pictures from being posted here? I honestly can't answer that, sorry. I just feel our society has become too jaded.

L'ultima fòrza è nella morte.

"If we think it's okay to say it's only "a pixel", not real, if we become hardened to see children abused on the screen, don't we eventually become hardened when it happens in real life?" I keep seeing statements like the one above, but I've not seen even one image on renderosity that depicts child abuse. I'm not for or against this new rule, I feel like the owners/admins of this site have the right to say and do what they please. However I think it's wrong for the government to tell people that they don't have the freedom to chose to create art the way they wish to. Soon they will be saying that singers can't sing what they want 'cause it may hurt someone, oh wait they already have. I guess next we won't be able to watch movies depicting violence or abuse. Some of you just don't get it do you?

I've got a question. How many of you watched the movie The Cell? And how many of you thought it was a good movie. Okay now how many of you REALLY TRULY said to your self afterwords "that movie showed a child being abused, it should be illegal." I'm sure the ones of you that said that (if any) were few and far between, because we all know that it's NOT REAL it's only a movie. There thats my point. I'll shut up for now.

"Art: 1 Skill. 2: Branch of learning. 3: Creation of things of beauty. 4: ingenuity. Nudity: Nude human figure. Pornography: Depiction of erotic behavior meant to cause sexual excitement chiefly to cause sexual excitement." What I have heard mostly in this debate has been "how does this infringe upon MY rights as an artist" or "The government is telling ME what I can or can not do" or other such drivel. It seems to be the usual ego-centric, self centered debate over how it affects the particular artist. NOT whether or how it affects children overall. Just the usual me, me, me. Maybe some who have forgetten what it is like to be a child, should check with one and see what there feelings are on the matter. I know, because my former stepfather had/has the same attitude as some of you pro kiddie nudity have. Really got his sick little jollies out of it all too. The ones who were affected by it and scarred for life, did'nt seem to matter, but he "Had his rights" too, like I hear from others that have obviously been cut from the same cloth. (BTW, as far as dressing kids up for "pageants", what happens is your own fault and resposibility, not societies, not other mothers, not the kids.That is just stealing your childrens childhood away for anothers benefit. Flame me if you will, thats my stance.)

"Maybe some who have forgetten what it is like to be a child, should check with one and see what there feelings are on the matter. I know, because my former stepfather had/has the same attitude as some of you pro kiddie nudity have. Really got his sick little jollies out of it all too. The ones who were affected by it and scarred for life, did'nt seem to matter, but he "Had his rights" too, like I hear from others that have obviously been cut from the same cloth." I've yet to see anyone being "pro kiddie nudity" as you put it. And this whole thing is not about "me me me" as you put it either. Everyone has rights. Artists (along with everyone else) have the right to freedom of expression. Children have the right not be abused or exploited. I lost that right when I was a child. I was not the victim of molestation however, I was the victim of a violent rape. As the years went on I've thought over and over again about what I did to deserve to have my right to keep my body mine taken from me, always thinking in the end "was this my fault?". Being to ashamed/afraid to tell my parents the sicko was never prosecuted. It seems now that people are trying to take more rights away from not only me but EVERYONE, even thought I'm not an advocate of art with nude children it should still be my right to render a nude cherub if I see fit. Also on another note I've seen several post saying things similar to this: "several of Thorne's very young girls " calling Thorne's faerie's children or teens. I was however under the impression that since poser 4 has them the classifeid as "Ideal Adults" that's what they were models of. ADULTS, not children or teenagers.

Thank you Mehndi for your clarification. That is very honorable of you. Unfortunately you are right about the sickos around here, which sorry bastards do not deserve any acknowledgement. There will be a public announcement soon about some major changes at ThorneWorks. For one thing, these perverts among you have now ruined it for everyone- THERE WILL BE NO MORE FREE THORNEWORKS FAERIES- EVER. You brought it on yourselves, and I damn sure don't need to do it anyway. I'm sure this makes some of you happy. Enjoy your victory now you perverted bastards, destroy all that is decent and innocent and good amongst yourselves if you will, you will have nothing left in the end, certainly you will have nothing of mine. Thorne

If you read the constitution it does'nt mention anything about kiddie nudity. Freedom of speech, yes. I am sorry for what happened to you, but that does'nt in any way entitle others to do the same, no matter how perverted somes perspective might be.

"If you read the constitution it does'nt mention anything about kiddie nudity. Freedom of speech, yes. I am sorry for what happened to you, but that does'nt in any way entitle others to do the same, no matter how perverted somes perspective might be." I'm not saying they have the right to kiddie porn! Nude does not equal porn, as some of you are suggesting. My parents have a picture of me naked as a jaybird in the bath tub palying as a small child. I suppose you all think they are now kiddie porn advocates as well. Obviously the point is one most of you are incapable of grasping.

I get it, pull your works until others comply with you. Although I am not anywhere near in the same art league as others, I recognize a ploy when I see one. Maybe some of these other so-called artists should make an effort and try to put their "talents" to use and come up with their own. Cry me a river while you are running to the bank from the sale of your works.

Jeezzz Louweezzz! Talk about cross posting! If you would read my initial post Lollirot, where I post the dictionary definition of terms (#64) you will see where I and most of the civilized world stands. Always good to know where you stand on a debate.

May I add one thing.....I am sorry if I say things that may hurt or belittle some and even though I mention no names, I do feel very bad....but THIS affects all of us, any of us whether we use this for hobby or professional cause there is a stigma out there, towards poser, and poser don't need this, it is an unfair disadvantage to have to start off with in such a competitive world. To so many of us poser is of great signifigance, as it should well be, look at how this very forum prospers. Yet, the fact that to many of who are looking in from outside, although our work may exel beyond proportions, it already has that setback/hurdle just because of WHAT WE USE!!! That's sad....and it's even sadder to know WHY....

Rad, get over it, sorry to sound like I don't give a shit, about you not getting work, but that Poser excuse is just that, an excuse. All I ever wanted to do was use poser for a hobby and release stress, and I've got more work because of it than i can handle. Nobody is asking me what programs I use to do it, or asking me what websites i surf to. All they want to know is, can I do what they want done. As an aside, I live in the same area you do, so you potentially could have had those jobs. As for me, when your hobby becomes your job, it is time to find another hobby. sigh

Rad...X-per is right. You've changed since your run-in with those folks who you feel are the "elite". I liked the old Rad better. Pop...pop...pop!!!

How is what I say any different than what all this is about?? I don't get it? You don't like the truth? This is not about me, but I have experienced something many others WILL also experience if they haven't already, this is trying to "help"....although I have no solution....seems the govt. may have one though.....very well, just forget it, I am obviously not portraying what I thought I was portraying and it wasn't anything to do with "get over"......there is a problem, hide head in sand and it will go away....

Sorry Peter, I understand your point and it is true that some people view Poser that way- it is also regularly used for monthly features in at least one popular nationally published magazine here in the U.S. (Maxim), and I have recently been getting more offers for paid artwork than I ever have until just this year. Forget the snobs! They said the same thing about impressionist art when it first came on the scene- big name art critics (not know-it-all, no-talent "OPINIONS" like some posts in this very thread, not worthy of an intelligent reply) Big name art critics berated the impressionists' work as "The Shame of France", and said that it would "scare the horses in the streets"... Yet even today I am enjoying gazing into Monet's Lily Pond on my wall, and those so-called critics are long dead and forgotten.

Well, that's strange, maybe things have actually changed?? See, it's funny, cause Maxim, all those big time places, back then, you even mention "poser" and they didn't wanna SEE it??? What happened?? Gee, maybe try again now? They wouldn't even LOOK, for crying out loud, not even LOOK!!! And the "why" was pathetic.....

Thorne, your solution isn't a solution, and I'm afraid you know it as well as I. Look up the list of posts and read again where I wrote that we're being held hostage by a tiny minority. You;re falling into that same trap by withholding your work to the much larger majority of people who appreciate it for what it is and not what they can pervert it into. Besides, if a perv wants your stuff, do you honestly think he'll thnk twice about having to pay? Do you really think that will make a difference? If anything, I suggest we handle this the same way we handle anyone else who perverts the work around here: exposure. Loud and long and screaming exposure until they get the concept that what they're doing is wrong, wrong, wrong. Scream and yell until Renderosity throws their worthless asses out, and if they post their smut anywhere else, scream and yell at that provider until the same thing happen. It won't eliminate all of it, but at least we can say we've done something positive that doesn't punish those who had no intention of ruining your work.

You certain it's a minority?? Unless things have changed, I could well be wrong....I need to research this again.....

I don't see how pulling free fairies is going to make any difference, either. Not while we have anus probes in our freestuff area, with a large number of downloads. All of these threads the last couple of days confuse me. I must have missed something...Vendors are no longer to display nude children in the Renderosity market. Yet, there are still wide open beavers put up to portray nothing more than that, and not even well done, in the galleries, vagina morphs and anal probes in the freestuff. What did I miss? Pop...pop...pop.

I stand with Marque on this issue, not as vehamently as she, but I am in that corner. I, too, am a survivor of child abuse. For those of you who are panicing over your right to pose and post nude children, you have no worries really. The law is stating that the child has to appear to be enganged in sexually 'explicit' behavior. So unless you have plans to have your fairys having hot and heavy lesbian sex, or your cherubs or angels going down on large, hairy men.. you aren't likely to get tossed in jail. A nude child standing beside a tree doesn't break the law, a nude child standing beside a tree with its hands between its legs does, as it can be construed as masterbating. For those of you hollering that pedophilia is passed on from generation to generation, bullcrap. I haven't sexually molested my children... as far as that's concerned my children will probably grow up like the person who stated he/she was never touched by their parents because the parents had been abuse survivors. It's hard to be a parent when you are a suvivor because you are constantly second guessing yourself when it comes to your child... and it hurts and it's not funny. And for those of you who say the art is only pixels on the screen... you need to get your head out of the sand... it's amazing what a pedophile will find erotic or use for their fantasy masterbating sessions... all well and fine if it's just being used for fantasy release right? Yeah, well... what happens when the fantasy isn't enough for them? How long before they just have to know what it /really/ feels like? Things to think about. And for those that are saying that nude children in art doesn't hurt anyone, sit down and talk to a survivor and while you're at it, flash pictures of naked, and half naked kids draped over couches or laying in the grass and watch them squirm and sweat. Those things can trigger flashbacks and emotional and physical symptoms for a survivor... hell there are days where being in the mall with all the caltholic schoolgirls roaming around in their super short skirts and happening to catch an old man doing the double take and staring at them can send me straight into a full blown panic attack... a reason why I tend to stay away from the galleries these days... had enough panic attacks occur because of images in there... don't need anymore. So, think again, sometimes they can hurt, and even though it's not your intention... you need to remember that your art will cause emotional reactions from it's viewers, and that each viewer will react differently to the same picture... that's called human nature... and yes, I'm sure there are people out there who use all the fairy images to masterbate too, as well as the nudes that are made with tiny bodies and tiny breasts... it's life :p Unfortuante and disturbing as it is... it's life :p -end of statement by one who personally feels that David Hamilton should be hung out in the town square and covered in honey and left to be eaten by the ants.-

Well, as for what people here or elsewhere do with Thorne's fairies, I can't speak for that I have personally downloaded and used (not erotically) most of Thorne's free fairies, and enjoyed their company in my poser library. However twice it has been mentioned that Renderotica is a hotbed of abuse to Thorne's fairies, and I'd like to put that record straight, I personally, last night and this morning waded through the first 27 pages of the X-rated gallery looking for verification of the abuse of the aforementioned fairies, and found a whole two renders using any of the fairies, and these two renders both featured Mikki, fully dressed, though admittedly in a Perils Of Pauline style pose awaiting rescue. Maybe someone should get their facts straight before they start slagging other websites?. In the R-gallery about 7 or so pages back, there is one render of a naked either Mikki or Moss Ivy, standing in a futuristic ship looking out over a very well done space scene. Again, neither Mikki nor Moss are what one would class one of Thorne's "younger fairies" Thorne, your fairie creations were and are wonderful, and I thank you for them. If you feel you can no longer share them with us, I understand, and good luck to you, in your ventures, both personal and professional.

I just deleted my long post due to my own lack of understanding some things...take care....I need to take a looooong lingering, meandering walk.....

Rad, for me personally, I am simply tired of hearing the constant refrain of how other peoples use of poser affects your personal ability to get work in the field. I don;t buy the argument. I don't know what work you are trying to find. as Thorne pointed out, Maxim magazine does a monthly article, illustrated with poser, and has done for approximately a year. Vivid entertainment's dvd interfaces are done in poser, on t.v. a couple of weeks ago on some fool special on ghosts a blasted hoax was there. good enough to make the tv show, and it was done completely in poser. There are at least two infomercials running here for various excersize machines that use poser illustrations. Those are by far not the only examples. For myself personally, I simply wanted a hobby, that released stress, all the work I get is by word of mouth, and forces me to continue to learn and grow. From just making pretty pictures in poser, and all the things one has to learn to do that reasonably well, has got me paying jobs using photoshop (bought and learned to make textures for poser), such as decals, logos and even business cards. It has also forced me to get an learn bryce marginally well, and now rhino. I am getting paid the going rate for a graphic artist(which I am most certainly not S), to model a person's radio controlled boat collection, texture it and animate it, so when he decides to put up a personal website he can put up his toys. So I will apologize for the gruff response to your post, and yes some people still think low budget programs like poser and bryce are beneath them, but that is changing, and shouldn't stop you from finding some work and sales. As an aside, for the revenge factor, the model boat job, I got, because the graphic artist he hired, complete with degrees and experience, kept changing the look of the boats, because it was easier for Max to do them that way. he got fired, because he wasn;t modelling the clients boats. Funny a rookie like me, can do the boat in rhino just fine.

Just wanted to say that looking through the gallery earlier I saw a picture that distubs me a whole lot more than seeing a nude child and seems like i have seen several like it in the past, and i think maybe that something is to be said about it as well. look up a picture by MCD called "Amelia" and you will see what im saying.

Amelia is a disturbing work. Its intended to be. I think the does violent imagery contribute to violence in reality debate may belong in a new thread. Issues of child pornography and Poser have been fully discussed here already (and I dont feel I have anything new to add.) I just wish we could live in a world where all parents loved their children and they were not molested.

Violent imagery, child porn, they both weigh quite well in the same basket and usually one or the other will lead you to both. The problem with 3D art of this nature is the very reality of it. Poser folks are forever attempting to attain a most real form as possible to that of an actual photograph and many are indeed close enough to be just as real if not more. Therefore when you have childlike sexual renderings and violence towards women images they become just as real as actual photographs could ever be. And all this will be even better once more refined models come into play. Oh joy.

Therefore when you have childlike sexual renderings and violence towards women images they become just as real as actual photographs could ever be. <<<<<<<<<< Er, no. The difference would be that no person will have been harmed in the making of the 3D images. What you're saying is like saying Speilberg's 'Schindler's List' is as bad as the Holocaust. There sure are some realistic 'deaths' in that movie.

Everyone nowadays is sophisticated enought to know that no actual real deaths are portrayed onscreen. These are usually known as "Snuff" films. Why anyone feels as if they have a need to potray some images, makes me think alot about the creators, and not in a good way either.

Sorry everyone - the thread got moved from the Poser forum over here and I didn't have time to jump around looking for it. The post is a synopsis I wrote on the issues in the case - it's a hot constitutional issue. We'll all see how it plays out soon - arguments will be heard before the Court on October 31, 2001. I thought that the issue may be of interest to the Renderosity Community. It is not an editorial - it's just for information. I apologize if the post has caused any problems. The definition of "art" is subjective. What works for some doesn't work for others. The most important thing for us all is to respect one another's expressions and not to pass judgment. Unfortunately, for some, that's easier said than done. But when it comes to "explicit" art, who makes the call on what's decent? The government does. Can that be a dangerous thing? - of course. The CPPA has teeth. Recently in Texas, a child pornography ring was broken up - the members were charged with several violations of the CPPA - including the provision involving virtual child porn.

You know, someone should be able to add their own two cents for whatever they may be worth, (don't mean they are gospel), without having to get comebacks of a "personal attack" nature, I never asked or ranted about a "JOB", I was just giving my opinion about this! That goes out to X-perimentalman.... This one to Poppi.....dear, I respect you greatly, but I have been having problems outside of this forum that have NOTHING at all to do with this forum or 3D Art, personal things, maybe health things, but that is no ones real business unless I wish to say. Maybe this has changed me a little, if so, I am sorry, and I did not mean any ill towards anyone. But please don't make this stuff personal, no matter what, I am only one of many opinions and sure, I am subject to be WRONG, I accept that, but there is no need to get personal about stuff that has NO bearing on this whatsoever.... Take care...

Rad, you are allowed to have your own opinions and express them, no one is arguing that, but you have in the past, and once more in this thread, stated that you can't get people to even look at your work because it was done in poser, and the reason you have professed more than once is people in the field and trade, feel poser is a joke. Not your work, of course, but other peoples work, have made the people you are showing your work to, not want to look or purchase, what you've done, simply because it was done in poser. Well I don't buy it, my own personal experience is that even though I am not even looking for work in the field, it is piling up on my desk and doorstep, and nobody squawks about what program I am going to do the work in, just that it is done, on time on budget, to their specifications. My answer to you, may have been gruff and short tempered, but I for one do not and cannot buy into the argument, that what you or anyone else does with poser has any effect on your ability to get paying jobs, or get your work shown or sold. That relies strictly on the individual producing the work, it either stands and falls on it's own merits.

Well, things may have changed, and also, I may have been a party to my own foolishness because of the way I approached the situation....I was "green" when it came to attempt to distribute my comic, I had no idea to whom to even approach, but I did find a bias to 3D art in general at that particular time, maybe that's something I should also have stated, but on a few occasions, and I wish I had those communicaes cause I lost them, but I was bluntly told that my work would not even be LOOKED at merely because it had reference to Metacreations Poser...and that bothered me cause it was unfair. I should point out also that upon several instances where "linking" was involved to some of the more prominent "artsy" sites and webrings I DID finally get accepted, but ONLY because I wrote them back telling them, "hey, I did not just use POSER, more than half my work consists of Photoshop"....THAT made a difference by far... but should it have?? Had I to do it over, as I do now, I know better than to just say it was done with one app.....I was an idiot and did not realize this would be a hindrance as it was, AT THAT TIME. Maybe things have changed, that was last year. But judging from that elite place I submitted work to, and I am not feeling bad about that, but I find it pathetic, we still have some bias from some places, and unfortunatly it's in the 3D realm itself. I think those high enders are just insecure and feel threatened by our cheaper app being so good.....take care.

HARBINGER-3D, Thanks for the best legal translation so far, it has helped to ease some of the confusion I think, for me at least.

"Your work is to keep cranking the flywheel that turns the gears that spin the belt in the engine of belief that keeps you and your desk in midair."

Annie Dillard

Harbinger3D, Just by way of keeping the record straight, in the Texas case you refer to no charges involving virtual kiddie porn were lodged, however the people who were indicted attempted to claim as a defense tactic, that because the images were digital renderings they were innocent. This however was discredited when an expert managed to actually identify several of the girls involved. Additionally the porn ring was not recently broken... the original raid, relatively quietly, took place in Sept. 1999 the sentancing phase is what has gotten all of the recent notice.

I would have to suppose of course that if i spent thousands of dollars on Max and Maya and Lightwave, spent hundreds or thousands of dollars on learning to use the blasted things I might feel threatened tooLOL Blow it off, don't worry about them, they're not the ones going to buy or produce your comic anyway, kick their ass(metaphorically speaking of course) and take their names later.

Hehe, that's funny....;-)

Digital: Everyone nowadays is sophisticated enought to know that no actual real deaths are portrayed onscreen. But according to this law, that wouldn't matter. We're all sophisticated enough to realize that no actual child abuse is taking place in the making of these images, and yet these "virtual child molesters" are held to a different accounatbility. We can show "virtual rape" or "virtual murder" in a movie, and we can calmly say "Oh, well, that's not real" -- but we can't here? I'm gonna underscore again: I don't like child pornography. It's the lowest of the low, as far as I'm concerned. But I'm far more concerned about the ramifications of this bill and what can happen as a result of it. This is a BandAid solution to a broken leg problem, and I think we should expose it for the political grandstanding silliness that it is.

Wow, I guess I am jumping into this a little late, but I have a few thots on this matter. But first a little background, I will say that as a child there was abuse. My feelings of child nudity are this. I used to have this picture of my son when he was about 3 years old, he had just come out of the shower when I snapped it..in fact he still had one foot in the shawer. The picture was beautiful, the steam left over from the shower was flowing all around him and to a degree made him look like a child aperition comming out of the fog. I thot it was one of the most beautiful pictures I had of my child. Since then I have lost that picture but not the memory. But I think about what you all are saying the pro's and the con's and I have to wonder, if I still had possession of that picture, could I find myself in the eyes of scruntny? Could someone have me arrested for child porography? I find this ludicris and insane. And I have to wonder what is happening in this country. I do know of an incident where a women took some film in to be developed , one of the pictures on the film was her son about 6 years old taking his underwear off in the hallway. The guy at the photo place called the police. The police had the guy at the photo shop call the woman and lured her down there with the promise of the pictures being developed. When the woman arrived her and her young male esscort were taken to the police station and she was questioned about the picture. She informed them that the picture was her son. They inquired about her sons location and informed her the child protection would be picking up the child. She said that was not nessesary, when they asked why she said because my son is sitting in the hallway waiting for me. Yes her son was now a full grown adult. And the police looked like idiots, she was released amediately. But the way things are going...would she still have been released today? Because today just owning dipicitions of a nude child can get you arrested, even if the picture was taken 20 years ago. Even tho I was abused as a child, I don't think that every nude picture of a child is bad, in fact I honestly believe that most pictures depicting nude children are beautiful images to be treasured, not disgraced or torn apart and made to be ugly.

Chuckles Whilst out book shopping last night at a legitimate REAL bookstore, not even one hidden in some dark alleyway... One of the featured books in the art and photography section, was called "Naked Babies". And guess what it was full of? ;p