Character modelling and Pornography

I’m wondering to what extent 3D artists (amongst other artists) are at risk of being accused of pornography. Modelling nude bodies could be considered a touchy subject by some, especially if characters could be construed as being youngish. Does anyone have any experience in this area, or feel constrained in your character modelling. Sintel was of course pretty young at the outset of that story. But probably legal.

depends on the country. it would be legal in america and the aussies are more lienient on nudity than america. games down under can get away with more nudity but in america they get away with more violence. you might ask the make human developers if any of their users have run into legal problems, but i haven’t heard of any.

by the way nudity isn’t pornography. its the actions depicted that make it pornography. there is even nude art on the Sistine chapel ceiling

The Australian artist Bill Henson had quite a lot of legal bother a few years ago for photographs of minors which displayed a lot of nudity. He wasn’t charged in the end but it caused quite a lot of controversy.

photographs of real people isn’t the same as drawings, or 3d art. in america his pictures would be illegal and he would have gone to prison and had to spend the rest of his life as a registers sex offender. while you will find nude paintings at the vatican you wont find playboy on sale that the gift shop. imaginary and real are two different things. 3d art isn’t expoliting a child, the drawing wont suffer any mental trauma from it. make human is perfectly legal om america and can make children, and all of its models are nude. and there is no age requirement to down load it so its not considered porn at all, its considered art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors that page has a listing of varicose countries stance.

by the way if you ever come to america dont bring any of bill jensons photos, they are a felony. but just a nude 3d model isn’t. you would be safe.

christina your crazy

MakeHuman is very relevant in this context. Thanks for reminding me of that.

To what extent? I would say anytime they model a nude character, since to many nudity equals pornography. As a 3D modeler I am hesitant to model children even though other companies (such as DAZ and Poser) have children models. I’m hesitant to use children in my art because I don’t want to be accused of “pornography” or “child pornography.”

In the movie Sintel, the character didn’t have a definite age. She was just young. I figure she was in her late teens or early twenties at the beginning of the movie.

Actually, Bill Henson has exhibited his photography here in the US, so his images are probably legal here in the US. We had our own controversy with Jock Sturges and David Hamilton over underage photography.

This thread is a wind up right?

Peoples personal taste is one thing, the law is another… but also what context do you exhibit your work?

In “artistic” circles the study of the human figure (nude) is a fundamental basis of learning. Prudes need not apply! Just go to your local art gallery or art school and see how much nudity abounds…

If you start to graphically portray a sex act of any kind (and just being naked is not a sex act) if you want to exhibit your work you may need to check what local laws are in force at the place you exhibit… (or on the internet the laws in the country of web host)

As you can see in most “character modelling contexts” and cg art people may call your work pornographic because of their personal world view, but so what? you’re almost certainly not doing anything illegal.

If you personally find your work offensive, pornographic and exploitative then you have to ask yourself why you’re doing it…

Blender artists allows “tasteful” nudity (tasteful is defined by the moderators values) but that’s not a legal issue really…

Sintel was of course pretty young at the outset of that story. But probably legal.

but the above makes me think you’re not genuine at all and are just trying to provoke a reaction from the “ultra conservative Christian” contingent on this forum…

That or you believe that having any imagery featuring people walking about fully clothed and “playing with their dragon” must be pornography…

but I see your handle is “not just a clever name”…

It’s a serious concern Mike. I’m modelling a quite young character and I can see that some people might take issue with that if I post on a public forum. In fact I won’t be posting WIPs here. Once my character is completed and fully clothed, maybe.

Well, that’s your choice. to “lock yourself away” because somebody in the world might mis interpret your work or intentions… a little extreme!

You’ll miss out on potentially useful critique, but avoid inappropriate comments from people who should know better…

Just add NSFW (not safe for work) in any thread title involving nudity and no one should complain!

Not quite locking myself away. I’m doing a workshop. I’ll get plenty of critique. Once I’m up to the animation phase I’ll be back here.

Just don’t add a penis and you’ll be fine.
If the character will wear cloths for the project, a penis is a waste of time to model anyway.

That’s easy. This particular character lost his a couple of hundred years back.

I say as long as a character shows no primary sexual organs it´s all fine, be it nude down to the flesh. In case of doubt texture an adams/eve costume on it :smiley:
You don´t need genitalia anyways for anatomical studies of the human body unless your focus is there.
Some people already find nipples offensive. Nothing you need either.

As long as there is no genitalia, textured or modeled, there is nothing to even start a discussion.
It´s about as useful of a discussion as why bathing cloths are OK, but underwear is a no-go for many, be it in CG, photographs or on the bach :wink:

Take Donatello´s David. A nude male youngling. Rumours even say it is supposed to be Donatellos lover/muse.
What´s better than a possibly minor nude homosexual statue that is one of the milestones of art itself? I yet have to hear its pornography, or even child pornography.
I am certain there are some who want to dress David for display, but as Mike said… need not apply. Those folks are not even remotely close to art.

Let´s exaggerate a tad:

The worst of things lately is the ship that sails under the child pornography banner.
Don´t get me wrong, it´s good somethings done, but gouverments don´t need to censor the internet without any regulation or control from outside, but as soon as one is criticising their methods against child pornography, you´ll be stoned, because if you are not for measures against child pornography by any means necessary, you obviously have to be for it…sigh

And I don´t want to see similar stuff happening for art.
It will be the day culture is doomed, when CG artists, painters or sculptors go to jail, taken away by the gouverment without any control from the outside for drawing a nude person that is suspectively minor but not releated to any sexual action.

I agree though that Makehuman is possibly on thin ice, as you can turn on genitalia even for the youngest setting. I was always wondering why it is there in the first place.

Nudity does not equal pornography, period!

Modeling a minor 3D character is perfectly legal but you don’t have to model the penis, vagina or nipples you know >_>

Bill got in legal troubles because he possessed nude pictures of under-aged children, not because he modeled a character, you also don’t need pictures of nude children to model a child/teenage character, teenage children are basically just smaller versions of adults but the shape is the same, smaller children don’t have the same shape but it is easy to just look at a clothed reference to get the shape right.

And lastly just ignore the people who find it unethical or whatever, if you want/need to model a child you can do just that, they can’t do anything to stop you (unless you possess pictures of nude minors, so don’t do that ;))

Extremely likely. Any depiction of a nude person is likely to be considered pornography by an alarmly large proportion of people especially if the character is construed as being young and depending on how the are posed. Playboy doesn’t depict any sex but simply by the way the girls are posed its considered pornography.

But as long as what you are doing is legal than it all depends on how much heat you are willing to take.

Man I have seen people flip out over 3d.sk references, never under estimate the stupidity of people or just how extreme there views on certain subjects can be. Hell that’s how the Last Judgement ended up getting defaced and a famous copy of statue of David now spots a fig leaf.

I have known artists and art instructors that held the view that nudity and the naked figure had absolutely no place in art. I once got into a debate with an art director who would discount anyone who even implied sexuality/sensuality or nudity in artwork.

When in doubt about pornography and child stuff, ask yourself: “Would I have troubles handling the loving care of my huge and passionate cell mate Bubba?” :evilgrin:

Jails are choke full of people who new their rights and thought that they were doing nothing bad but, when principles and common sense meet tazers and handcuffs, the later always win.

Better safe than sorry.

P.S.: if you want to model something organic, there about 1.6 million species of eukaryotes; is it necessary to always model Homo Sapiens specimens?

Fun Fact: Egon Schiele did jail time for drawing nudes of minors.