Should it be a crime, if an artist use actual children as a reference for NSFW? Or if they draw NSFW material based on actual children?

Many lolicon sites seen to have NSFW works based on irl children from movies, like that one girl from poltergeist. I want to know if it should be a crime doing so.

1 Like

Using someone’s image, anyone’s image, without their express approval, is a violation of their privacy. However, public figures, politicians, actors, etc. are not always included in this.

3 Likes

That doesn’t answer if it should be a crime, however. An invasion of privacy isn’t always illegal. I struggle with this same question a lot and have posted about it before on this forum:

I could/would argue that making NSFW of a cartoon character despite the original creator being uncomfortable with it is a violation of their wishes. Does that mean all Rule 34 (“if it exists, there’s porn of it”) should be considered illegal because of copyright violation and sexual harassment/exploitation of a creator’s characters? Where is the line to be drawn?

2 Likes

You are correct, but as far as I feel, an invasion of privacy should always be a crime.

Agree to disagree, I suppose. I know Prostasia opposes using actual minors for reference (understandably/rightfully so), but my own feelings are more ambivalent. How is, say, hentai art based on young Emma Watson or Millie Bobby Brown any different from a political cartoon of Trump or Biden? Doesn’t it all fall under freedom to parody/of expression? What’s the real difference between an unflattering cartoon of a politician and a hentai parody of a celebrity? Their age? Okay, how about 18+ celebrities? What about taking an adult celeb and aging them down in the art? Or my aforementioned example of cartoon characters? Alex Hirsch based Dipper and Mabel on himself and his twin, so is making art of them wrong because of this?

I hope you can see why I struggle a lot with this topic and why I find it all so very confusing. It doesn’t feel very consistent, y’know?

3 Likes

People willing to trade their face in the public spotlight for money I don’t think they should have much of a say. They given up their privacy when it comes to the likeness of any character they’ve played. They loaned it to that character for a paycheck. If you don’t want people to see you having sex with your boyfriend, don’t film it. Which goes to celebrities with secret sex tapes!

Yeah, some iterations of them may be distasteful and disturbing to them, but they were willing to be out there in the public eye. I’m sure there’s a line somewhere? They should almost be flattered that people are still interested in them as that character. Although it could borderline on obsessiveness and almost cyber stalking?

Imo AI is crossing it with it’s realistic heuristics. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the real thing. Far as training, there are only so many iterations of a species, it’s bound to figure them all out eventually regardless. The artists of old, painters, I’m sure have done paintings of famous people of their time or people they knew. Including children. We’ve seen many of them. They’re all long dead now. So then what? What happens in 50 or 100 years when they’re gone as a person in a body. Their body long since buried or cremated and gone. Then what?

1 Like