I came across a really interesting blog post today;
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/word-person-included-fictional-or.html
the background of the story is that a man in NSW, Australia was charged in this case http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24767202-2,00.html - I'm torn on this issue but based on this 90% of Manga is now illegal, and if I draw a stick figure doodle having sex on paper i can be charged with 'production' of pornography.
I love this quote "And, I should warn members of the Australian judiciary, fictional characters don't just have sex. Sometimes they murder each other, and take fictional drugs, and are cruel to fictional animals, and throw fictional babies off roofs. Crimes, crime everywhere."
Thoughts?
Cheers,
Dean
lol - i posted my comment to a geek newsgroup here in NY, the answers they posted are below.
ReplyDeleteI love the over 18 defense regardless of age of depiction. I guess otherwise you could go to jail for having sex with your lover if she dressed up in a cheerleaders uniform.
Cheers,
Dean
-----------------
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 13:23, Michael wrote:
Aren't we talking about child pornography here? Cartoon or real, is this not illegal? Go straight to jail, no debate. Using the Simpsons characters must violate some trademark laws too.
-Mike
------------------
On Dec 9, 2008, at 9:05 AM, Randy wrote:
massive difference between real & cartoon...
in particular, child pornography in cartoon form involves no children.
in the US:
Federal sentencing guidelines regarding child pornography differentiate between production, distribution and purchasing/receiving, and also include variations in severity based on the age of the child involved in the materials, with significant increases in penalties when the offense involves a prepubescent child or a child under the age of 12.
http://www.ussc.gov/r_congress/SCAC.HTM
it may be disgusting to you, but not illegal. as for trademarks, again, in the US, it could easily be argued that it's a parody which are exempt from copyright laws:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html
trademark infringement is not relevant here because they were not saying that this was an official simpsons production, nor is it likely to be confused with one.
all in all, some of the fun with the first amendment in the US, but it helps to show how ridiculous the thought process is in categorizing a drawing as a criminal act.
I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Voltaire
randy
From: newtech-1 on behalf of Tim
Sent: Tue 12/9/2008 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [newtech-1] Fictional character human rights?
Can't they just make the argument that since the Simpsons started on December 17th, 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Simpsons) that all parties involved are at least 18, almost 19 years old no matter how they portray themselves? If they 'are "people" in the eyes of the law' (http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/word-person-included-fictional-or.html) shouldn't they age just as people do?
Tim