'cherub art' or child pornography?

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tybalt

New Member
for the last few days there has been debate over an artist on deviant art with the admins over some content. the artist has 'cherubs' naked and in one case in bondage. for lots of people it just looks like babies with wings and rather large genitalia. one picture has the 'cherub' on its back with its legs open and winking and no wings being shown. one admin for the site even went as far as to post a smarmy journal on her profile defending this artist. when asked about the 'cherub' in bondage, she didnt reply.

unfortunately you need a deviant art account with the content filters turned off to see these pictures. if need be i can provide links to the artist (NSFW) and the admins journal.
any help would be greatly appreciated!
 
tybalt said:
for the last few days there has been debate over an artist on deviant art with the admins over some content. the artist has 'cherubs' naked and in one case in bondage. for lots of people it just looks like babies with wings and rather large genitalia. one picture has the 'cherub' on its back with its legs open and winking and no wings being shown. one admin for the site even went as far as to post a smarmy journal on her profile defending this artist. when asked about the 'cherub' in bondage, she didnt reply.

unfortunately you need a deviant art account with the content filters turned off to see these pictures. if need be i can provide links to the artist (NSFW) and the admins journal.
any help would be greatly appreciated!
Click to expand...

As disturbing as I'm sure the pictures are, I don't believe they are considered child porn according to the definitions used in the US Code, here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html

Drawings are excluded:

(11) the term "indistinguishable" used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.
Click to expand...

You can find the entire chapter here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_110.html

Check back, as others may have more/different information.
 
I agree with Irish although I would need to double check. If I recall correctly, the issue behind the legislation created to deal with child porn had to do with protection of actual children (and there were apparently international rings of child pornography collectors.) With art, even if the thought might be offensive to some, as long as no real children appear it would seem not illegal and doesn't flout the purpose of the statute and not too "deviant" - pardon the pun. ;)
 
thanks for the info! i have to add, what slipped my mind in this case is that other artists have had their pictures removed because of 'aging up' a character or for what the admins would consider to be children depicted sexually. as im thinking of it more besides the moral issue involved i think the bigger question is whats fair to the users. i will look more into this matter and thanks again!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top